Genital-less Siddhas
Recently I was in an astral place where the yogis and yoginis have no genital protrusions or orifices. These were persons who used physical bodies like ours in previous lives but who graduated to the siddhaloka places where they retracted their genitals. This is done by reversing the emergence of those organs and by developing a lack of need for reproduction and pleasure through the organs.
These yogis/yoginis mastered various pranayama breath infusion techniques in the physical and astral existence, and by these retracted their genitals until the sexual protrusions in males and the orifices in females were drawn in and dissolved.
-
Jay Rishi:
"These were persons who used physical bodies like ours in previous lives but who graduated to the siddhaloka places where they retracted their genitals."
Stemming from the above statement, I 'd like to inquire a bit regarding the gradation of yogic cosmological locations and their characteristics.
Siddhaloka is a holding zone, therefore a variety of activities and practices go on at that level, including reversal of subtle sexual organs, which supports the lack of need for reproduction and sex organs' derived pleasures.
Mahalorka is the rebirth resistance zone.
And, Janaloka is the social resistance zone.
They are in this order of progression on the purificatory evolutionary ladder.
My question is (unless my definitions are incorrect): wouldn't sexual resistance be more effectively accomplished after social resistance? And so, shouldn't a great deal of social resistance or the characteristics of Janaloka be observed prior to, but definitely in siddhaloka?
-
Sexual resistance even though it is a monster achievement is not as big as social resistance. Sex resistance is tagged by most of the ascetic groups as the main hurdle but this idea is nonsense. However, we still have to take it seriously because until we get it out of the way, we cannot see the real culprit.
The real problem is social involvement for whatever reason, sexual or otherwise. Because sex is blatant and vulgar, a scene is made about it. It is given the tag as the most disruptive feature but this is totally untrue. The real problem is social involvement.
Okay! If you do not agree with this, the disagreement is commendable.
Even with the trees we hear that early on, there were no flowering plants on this planet. Some people who are against whatever science says feel that it incorrect. But actually, it is a proven fact if you go to where volcanoes erupt and you observe which plants live on volcanic rock at first.
But let us agree for an instance that yes, there were no flowering plants. In other words there was no obvious sexual life in plants initially. Okay!
Does that mean that the first plants which were incapable of rendering sexual involvements were more liberated then the plants which came later because those later plants were sexually involved to spread pollen from male flowers to female ones?
Sex is merely a progression but from what?
From social involvement.
Hence the problem is sociology. Initially sociology produced sexuality not the other way around. Sociology is a bigger issue.
-
Thank you! The explanation is simple, great!
"Sex is merely a progression but from what?From social involvement."
Sex is an accessory to social involvement. And, its implication is there only to lubricate social engagements and responsibilities of the bodies (both subtle & physical).
