Heaven On Earth

Living Enlightenment--a call for evolution beyond ego by Andrew Cohen.

I just finished reading this book late last night, well early this morning actually. It's a really quick read and very interesting too. I think Andrew has a lot of valuable teachings to offer along with a good dose of direct enlightenment experiences.

This book is an interview of questions and answers. Chapter 16 is called--the promise of perfection.

Do you think it is possible to be free within a romantic relationship?

Andrew answers, "Almost impossible" and talks about "the sexual/romantic experience as one of the most confusing areas of human life and seems to be the hardest to get clear about." The biggest issue here is the deep emotional and psychological attachment that sex and romance creates.

So isn't it possible to pursue freedom together? Can't we walk the path to
enlightenment in the context of a sexual/romantic relationship?

Andrews response is "One would hope so..." but again, the problem is the powerful attachment that sex and romance creates. It comes down to the matter of priorities because if we are seeking freedom/liberation/enlightenment it is "almost inevitable that attachment will quickly become more important to us than our potential liberation.

But I don't understand why there has to be conflict between freedom and being together.

It depends on what we mean when we speak of freedom. Andrew explains that being enlightened means being free of attachment. "...when you hold on to absolutely nothing, you are free--automatically. And the truth that liberates is the profound recognition of just that fact--that your own natural state is already free. The only ting that keeps us in bondage is the unquestioned belief that there is something fundamental that is missing from our own self. So out of ignorance of our own natural state, we bind ourselves to people and things, convinced that through creating attachment we will find happiness and contentment."

Well, so many of us have discovered that this just isn't the case. People put so much into the myth of finding true love and romance and the perfect sexual partner--always looking for their one and only--that perfect someone who resides outside of yourself. If the dream comes true the attachment can be huge. But what happens once we find the perfect partner? We still have to deal with oneself. We find the one and he wasn't the one after all. We aren't free because we we attach to things outside of ourselves.

Andrew says that where there is fear there is attachment and where there is attachment there is always fear of loss. We can never be truly happy in this state. I get this on a very deep and profound level. "It is the revelation of enlightenment itself that shows all of this directly to us--the perennial truth that real happiness and the only lasting contentment lie within us as our own True Self..."

I do feel strongly drawn toward the profound freedom you're describing but I also feel like it's a natural thing to want to be in a relationship. From the way you're speaking, it almost sounds like you're advocating celibacy.

It's interesting how people interpret things because this isn't what I was hearing. Andrew says, "Is that what I said? So many people tend to misinterpret what I am saying whenever I speak about this particular topic...it's very difficult to see clearly into this area of the human experience, especially when it relates to ourselves. All I'm trying to do is present the facts. You asked about sex, romance and enlightenment, and all I'm saying is that the definition of spiritual freedom is freedom from attachment. Sex creates attachment--that's all there is to it. And that is why there is almost always an inherent conflict between the longing for inner freedom and the karmic consequences of the sexual/romantic experience. Therefore, the big question is: If enlightened freedom is freedom from attachment, then what are we all going to do about the relentless nature of sexual attraction?"

I was hoping you were going to give me an answer to that one!

"...On one extreme, we have been encouraged to use the sexual experience itself as a vehicle for self-transcendence and, on the other, we have been told that if we want to be liberated...we have to renounce the sexual experience altogether. I believe that if we want to be free, we must think very deeply about these matters for ourselves..." He goes on to say that even enlightened masters have come to contradictory conclusions and so we must turn to our own honest inquiry on this matter. When probed further he still refuses to answer for us. He says if we want to be free then all we need to know is that free means free from attachment.

Andrew also says that the promise of perfect happiness and blissful fulfillment inherent in sexual desire is overwhelmingly deceptive and that we must come to recognize "the difference between the personal bliss of the romantic interlude and the impersonal ecstasy of spiritual freedom." He also says, " But realistically, in a world like ours that is incessantly propagating this powerful promise, if we want to be free, we all, to some degree at least, have to be willing to be renunciates!" But before you get yourself in a tither, he goes on to explain what it is that we have to be willing to renounce. "...renunciation means resisting the temptation to be seduced by the most powerful illusion that there is. It is was he calls "the promise of perfection" which is the belief that the perfect romance will make us happy and content and that we will finally feel whole and complete. "And also, it is only when we let go of the promise of perfection that it will become clear to us how, more often than not, the experience of romantic intoxication if fueled by the ego's need for personal affirmation."

Okay, okay...where's the nearest monastery?! But seriously, Andrew, if what you're saying is true, would there be any reason left to be in a relationship? Even though it's obviously not what you mean, it still keeps sounding like you're saying that if we want to be free, we have to give up the whole thing.

"Well yes, and no. Yes, if it means creating more suffocating attachment that only serves to perpetuate the illusory personal world of the separate ego. But no, if the context for personal intimacy and sexual communion is authentic spiritual freedom."

What does that mean?

"It means that we want to be free more than anything else and therefore are more interested in impersonal ecstasy than personal bliss. It means that the context for personal intimacy and sexual communion would be the impersonal--a dimension that is unknown in this wold, that is beyond ego and fee from attachment."

And where is this impersonal dimension found?

"Inside your own self...That is where you will discover an absolute love, a bliss that is empty of attachment and free from the conviction that anything fundamental is missing. And it is that context alone, which is one of inherent fullness or completion, that can make it possible for human beings to come together in personal intimacy and sexual communion in a way that is free from the pain, complexity, and unending confusion that are usually such an inherent part of this area of life."

I find this writing very profound and wonderful as it so perfectly coincides with polyamory as a powerful path on a spiritual journey. Polyamory can help teach one to love without attachment, to look within oneself for this absolute love and from this core of freedom when reaching out to others to share personal intimacy and sexual communion. I find it of significant importance that those attracted to the path of enlightenment who are in primary relationship (and committed secondary relationships as well) share the spiritual journey of enlightenment together. Rather than a interest in engaging in a lot of ego feeding in relationship it comes down to focusing on your intention and that of your partner to directly experience enlightenment. That, with personal intimacy and sexual communion thrown in, is my idea of heaven on earth.

Tristan Taromino--Opening Up

The Cunning Minx at Polyamory Weekly (Responsible Non-Monogamy From A Kink-Friendly, Pansexual Point Of View) interviews Tristan Taromino on her new book, Opening Up--A Guide To Creating And Sustaining Open Relationships. I think this podcast was 30 minutes long and it's a good one. Here is the link to it, podcast #159.

Also, if you listen to the podcast or check our her livejournal by clicking on The Cunning Minx link above, you will find the offer code coupon secret word to enhance your shopping pleasure Adam & Eve for 50% off your purchase.

Tristan says:

"So much of open relationships is challenging and about letting go of expectations."

She talks about how her interest used to mainly focus on the sex and now her focus is on the people who are having the sex.

"Who are these people that run in these non-monogamous circles?"

She interviewed 126 people from all over the country, from all types of backgrounds and it's their voices that drive the book. Her purpose is to offer practical hands on advice on polyamory and other non-monogamous relationship styles. One thing that she offers in the book is identifying different particular styles of non-monogamy. She has created an outline to help people conceptualize their own relationships and to fill in the details for themselves. She has done her research and lays out all the different ways to do non-monogamy without the rules of coloring within the lines.

One section in the book offers a variety of new relationship structures along with the pitfalls of each relationship style. These are just a few:

*partnered non monogamy--two people who are partnered, committed to one another with their partnership at the center.

*mono/poly combo--one partner ismonogamous and the other is polyamorous. This is a common but very under represented group.

*solo poly--this may be a temporary situation such as when all of a person's energy is devoted to grad school, or raising their children or it might be a lifetime commitment. These people don't want to be in a couple by choice.

The solo poly is an interesting style in our society in that most people naturally tend to couple and we don't understand people who aren't in a couple. She offers a quote from her book from a woman with multiple partners but no primary partner:

"I struggle with the stories I was told while growing up about what it means to have a fulfilling life."

Don't we all struggle with this? We need to challenge these old worn out messages from parents, peers, t.v., society...

One message of the book is that everything is an option. There are also monogamous people represented in the book. People who have gone from monogamy to polyamory and vice versa, from polyamory to monogamy. The point is for you to custom design your relationship for you and for the people you are involved with.

Do do this we need to question the norms, actively and consciously, to make our own choices. She encourages us to not do monogamy by default, simply because it's expected of us. Any decision we end up making is fine. One way isn't better than the other. Monogamous or poly, doesn't matter. What matters is that we do it consciously. Also, to remember that the choice we make may be "for now", whether it is poly or mono, straight or queer, the choice is for now.
People change.

Don't do monogamy by default.

Ah, that reminds me of one of the lessons by my teacher, Abraham. It covers all aspects of our life--living actively, consciously, mindfully. Living on purpose.

In the interview Minx mentioned that she had read that Tristan doesn't like the word bi-sexual, and Tristan admits that she doesn't. She says she identifies as queer and equal opportunity. She says that the strict definition of being bi-sexual is: that you love and have sex and are romantic with people of both, two genders, male and female. The problem with this is that she believes there are more than two genders. Using the word bi-sexual reinforces this gender binary and what she is interested in doing is totally disrupting and challenging this construct. She says there are multiple gender expressions and gender identities. When will this be a mainstream obvious?

"Being queer is not just about who I love and who I have sex with. It about my culture, my community, my politics, it's about the way I see things and the way I walk in the world...Queer just feels so much more inclusive to me."

There is a lot of kink represented in the book. She says, "the great thing about kinky people and open relationships is that it's about the community. It's part of S/M culture. Sometimes it's about mentoring--playing with someone, learning skills from them. Kinky people have more clearly defined roles. Partners have a very specific niche, a unique role that they fulfill in a particular relationship and in doing this, kinky people tend to feel very secure in where they are in their relationships. In the kinky community, people's different needs are more readily recognized."

For monogamous people who have strong passions in their life, if these passions don't match with their potential partner's passions, it's easier for this to cause a rift in the relationship, or to be a deal breaker "well you aren't the one for me." But at the center of relationships with people in open relationships is the acknowledgment that we can't be everything to everyone.

She talks of Daphne Rose Kingma's book, The Future of Love, which I have written about before. It's a book that I have referred lots of people to. Tristan says:

" Her book is critical to my thinking about open relationships. "

It totally speaks to me too. I recently pulled it off the bookshelf in my office, feeling drawn to reading it again. After a few pages in I knew I was supposed to give it to one of my friends to read who got so much out of it that he bought another copy and gave it to his girlfriend. I don't know what she got out of it. I still need to get another copy for myself so I can reread it. In this book, the author makes the point how we expect people to be 100% compatible with us--sexually, parenting style, values, to be our personal and financial institutions. The assumptions we make and want from one person is of course, totally unrealistic.

Tristan said, "It's like going to your gynecologist and asking them to perform foot surgery. Not a good idea."

And then there was a little digression about feet in the pussy...

Next week's podcast will be the second half of the interview when Tristan Taormino talks about the future of the polyamorous movement.