You are correct, sir. My bad. I did not see the "Sam."Dan Rowden wrote:In the above instance, starting the post with "Sam," should be sufficient to show that. Had Ryan quoted anyone else in the course of that post it would have been appropriate to have added the username to the quote tag.
We are all human but that doesn't mean our experience is the same.sam: But why pretend to know everyone else's experience?
Ryan: Because generally speaking the brain works the same in all individuals.
No one is saying you have to do it. It's your choice.sam: Yes Ryan, attachment to sex can be a problem. So don't attach to it.
Ryan: Yes, by not doing it. ...
Like you, Bin Laden claims knows the right way to live. So how are you different than him other than not being violent?sam: Bin Laden also talks about knowing what is good for everyone else.
Ryan: ... I do know for certain there is a right way to live, and I’ll debate anyone. I just don't resort to violence like Bin laden.
Give it up if that's what you want.sam: Even if you were to avoid it, you are still attached to it by your avoidance. Remember Spirituality 101?
Ryan: ... The mind can only fall silent to the desire of something if you avoid what it is the mind craves.
On the contrary. There is nothing defensive in saying people get to choose what they value. Saying that only your values matter is childish.sam: Don't love then, no one is forcing you to.
Ryan: This is an argument about whether or not romantic love is immoral or not. You are taking a very defensive stance here.
Do your homework with regard to others' experience. Just because you don't like apple pie doesn't mean someone else can't.sam: Do your homework, Ryan, your ignorance is getting old.
Ryan: I’ve actually experienced with Tantra a bit, I’ve actually taken the sexual experience to its very peak, I know for certain that it is a worthless experience. Pop a magic mushroom, you’ll get the same affect.
So Ryan says eating is okay, thank God! lol ...sam: If you are not ashamed, why do you see having sex as disgusting? Why isn't grinding up dead plants and animals in your mouth and pooping them out your butt disgusting? And of course, sex is necessary for the species survival. I'm surprised you haven't figured that one out yet.
Ryan: Eating is rather odd too when you think about it, but it is absolutely necessary for my survival so I accept it. ...
Your negative attachment is obvious.sam: ... it is simply a negative attachment. It rules you. ...
Ryan: You have it all wrong ...
I got it. It was a good little essay. I could learn to love a gal like that.samadhi wrote:Well, I have to admit, I was taken aback. There were over 1000 comments to the piece, most of them lambasting her. She said it was supposed to be funny. A lot of people missed the joke, and I have to say, I agree with them.
You’re a relativist, which is a poorly thought out philosophy in my opinion. People generally experience the world the same way because causality works on the mind in the same ways, which implies that there are truths. By stating that my experience is different than yours, and therefore we have choice to make decisions is wrong. There is no choice when there is clarity, as all experience is caused by the same factors. Unless you can see the error in your relativist thinking there is no point in taking this debate any further.We are all human but that doesn't mean our experience is the same.
Choice is an illusion. All behavior is caused by emotional motivations.No one is saying you have to do it. It's your choice.
I am conscious, whereas he is highly unconscious of what motivates him to speak and act in the world.Like you, Bin Laden claims knows the right way to live. So how are you different than him other than not being violent?
My absolute values only matter is you are seeking enlighenment. There is only one narrow road to enlighenment. The idea of many roads is a myth, a relativist blunder.On the contrary. There is nothing defensive in saying people get to choose what they value. Saying that only your values matter is childish.
But if overly sugary apple pie causes cavities in me, it will also cause cavities in you, you are not exempt from causality. Generally speaking, causality works the same on all minds, which implies absolute truth, NOT RELATIVISM.Just because you don't like apple pie doesn't mean someone else can't.
Do you know what fundamentalism is?sam: We are all human but that doesn't mean our experience is the same.
Ryan: You’re a relativist, which is a poorly thought out philosophy in my opinion. People generally experience the world the same way because causality works on the mind in the same ways, which implies that there are truths. By stating that my experience is different than yours, and therefore we have choice to make decisions is wrong. There is no choice when there is clarity, as all experience is caused by the same factors. Unless you can see the error in your relativist thinking there is no point in taking this debate any further.
So if there is no choice, why do you try to tell people what to do? Clearly from your standpoint, they have no choice in the matter.sam: No one is saying you have to do it. It's your choice.
Ryan: Choice is an illusion. All behavior is caused by emotional motivations.
Yet your supposed consciousness leads you to his conclusion, that you know what is best for others. You seem to be about as conscious as he is.sam: Like you, Bin Laden claims knows the right way to live. So how are you different than him other than not being violent?
Ryan: I am conscious, whereas he is highly unconscious of what motivates him to speak and act in the world.
All you are doing is asserting your experience. The dogmatic assertion of a negative attachment as a means of enlightenment is ignorance on steriods.sam: On the contrary. There is nothing defensive in saying people get to choose what they value. Saying that only your values matter is childish.
Ryan: My absolute values only matter is you are seeking enlighenment. There is only one narrow road to enlighenment. The idea of many roads is a myth, a relativist blunder.
Some people get cavities, some don't. Some like apple pie, some don't. Some get attached to sex, some don't. Your fundamentalism blinds you to the experience of others so you can assert your own to their detriment. That doesn't sound very enlightening to me.sam: Just because you don't like apple pie doesn't mean someone else can't.
Ryan: But if overly sugary apple pie causes cavities in me, it will also cause cavities in you, you are not exempt from causality. Generally speaking, causality works the same on all minds, which implies absolute truth, NOT RELATIVISM.
There is nothing wrong with holding positions and taking a stance of things. Moreover, being certain of what one knows to be true is much more productive than being too wishy washy, inconsistent, relative, and unable to be a confident judge of things.Do you know what fundamentalism is?
If you perceive that there is no choice, than that isn’t a choice in itself. Coming to a realization is involuntary, and if you are too emotionally feeble to come to the realization, then that was not your choice either.So if there is no choice, why do you try to tell people what to do? Clearly from your standpoint, they have no choice in the matter.
Yes, because I know what is best for myself. You see, I wouldn’t fall in love with a woman because I wouldn’t do that to her, as I wouldn’t do that to myself. Remember the Jesus quote: Treat others the way you want to be treated. There is nothing wrong with knowing what is best for others.Yet your supposed consciousness leads you to his conclusion, that you know what is best for others.
The absence of doing or thinking something negative is not a negative attachment, it is freedom.The dogmatic assertion of a negative attachment as a means of enlightenment is ignorance on steriods.
No, no, don’t play those games. Teeth are teeth period, and they react very similar to white sugar. The right amount of white sugar will destroy the enamel on any tooth, as just the right amount of emotional attachment to a woman will erode the soul of any man. And the perfect limus test is that when he loses his woman, if he cries, then he was deluded, he was attached, his soul was subservient to an illusion, an illusion of his own egotistical making.Some people get cavities, some don't. Some like apple pie, some don't. Some get attached to sex, some don't. Your fundamentalism blinds you to the experience of others so you can assert your own to their detriment. That doesn't sound very enlightening to me.
No there isn't unless your positions attempt to restrict others' behavior based on dogmatic assertions of authority. No one is saying you can be true to yourself but that does not entitle you to require the obedience of others to your every pronouncement.sam: Do you know what fundamentalism is?
Ryan: There is nothing wrong with holding positions and taking a stance of things. Moreover, being certain of what one knows to be true is much more productive than being too wishy washy, inconsistent, relative, and unable to be a confident judge of things.
You are making my point. If there is no choice, of what use is it to require behavior of others that conforms with your own? Why even be concerned with their behavior when they have no choice as to what that behavior is?sam: So if there is no choice, why do you try to tell people what to do? Clearly from your standpoint, they have no choice in the matter.
Ryan: If you perceive that there is no choice, than that isn’t a choice in itself. Coming to a realization is involuntary, and if you are too emotionally feeble to come to the realization, then there was not your choice either.
It's fine that you know what's best for you. And indeed, treat others as you would like to be treated. I assume you don't want me telling you what to do, do you? Then why do you tell me what to do? And if you assume you know what is best for others, would that include allowing them to discover their own truth or are your truths the only ones available for consideration?sam: Yet your supposed consciousness leads you to his conclusion, that you know what is best for others.
Ryan: Yes, because I know what is best for myself. You see, I wouldn’t fall in love with a woman because I wouldn’t do that to her, as I wouldn’t do that to myself. Remember the Jesus quote: Treat others the way you want to be treated. There is nothing wrong with knowing what is best for others.
Your negative attachment is the belief that sex is negative. You get that attachments are about being possessive but you don't get that attachments can also be about dogmatic rejection. Think about racism if you want an example.sam: The dogmatic assertion of a negative attachment as a means of enlightenment is ignorance on steriods.
Ryan: The absence of doing or thinking something negative is not a negative attachment, it is freedom.
False. My father smoked for forty years and never got cancer. Bodies are different and react differently to identical circumstances.sam: Some people get cavities, some don't. Some like apple pie, some don't. Some get attached to sex, some don't. Your fundamentalism blinds you to the experience of others so you can assert your own to their detriment. That doesn't sound very enlightening to me.
Ryan: No, no, don’t play those games. Teeth are teeth period, and they react very similar to white sugar. The right amount of white sugar will destroy the enamel on any tooth ...
Once again, you assume your conclusion, that sex requires emotional attachment. Are you attached to every piece of food you ingest? You I bet you enjoy some kinds of food as opposed to others. You want to interpret all sexuality through a single lens, that is fundamentalism and you embody it.... as just the right amount of emotional attachment to a woman will erode the soul of any man.
This has been your experience. Why do you try to speak for everyone when clearly you are speaking for yourself?And the perfect limus test is that when he loses his woman, if he cries, then he was deluded, he was attached, his soul was subservient to an illusion, an illusion of his own egotistical making.
Sayeth Ryan with a toothless grin!Woman is man's tooth ache.
If you change, or if you don’t, it will be caused to happen, it isn’t your choice at all. And that is why I am indifferent, I do not care at all.You are making my point. If there is no choice, of what use is it to require behavior of others that conforms with your own? Why even be concerned with their behavior when they have no choice as to what that behavior is?
I make absolute statements, it is only your interpretation that I am ordering you around. I speak on what I believe is universally enlightened behavior.And indeed, treat others as you would like to be treated. I assume you don't want me telling you what to do, do you? Then why do you tell me what to do? And if you assume you know what is best for others, would that include allowing them to discover their own truth or are your truths the only ones available for consideration?
Sexual attachment causes suffering, and that is why it is negative. I think it is intelligent to prevent unnecessary suffering. You wouldn’t call it a negative attachment if I had a belief that putting my hand on a stove is negative would you?Your negative attachment is the belief that sex is negative.
That still doesn’t hide the fact that smoking did cause serious damage to his lungs, tissues, and cellular biology. If an autopsy was done, there still would be causal damage. He still wasn't exempt from the causal laws of smoking.False. My father smoked for forty years and never got cancer.
Food can not be compared to sex, the sexual experience is more intimately linked with the emotions, especially for women, and that is why it is so evil for men to engage in the act.Are you attached to every piece of food you ingest? You I bet you enjoy some kinds of food as opposed to others. You want to interpret all sexuality through a single lens.
its universal though, have you ever been a funeral? it is group delusion every time. Wives crying for lost husbands, and husbands crying for lost wives. It is an indication that people have lead dishonest lives.Why do you try to speak for everyone when clearly you are speaking for yourself?
You are contradicting yourself Ryan. If you didn't care, you wouldn't tell people how to live.sam: You are making my point. If there is no choice, of what use is it to require behavior of others that conforms with your own? Why even be concerned with their behavior when they have no choice as to what that behavior is?
Ryan: If you change, or if you don’t, it will be caused to happen, it isn’t your choice at all. And that is why I am indifferent, I do not care at all.
Of course you do. You like to make pronouncements, which bolsters your ego, but you seem to take no interest in their implications as that would undermine your ego.sam: And indeed, treat others as you would like to be treated. I assume you don't want me telling you what to do, do you? Then why do you tell me what to do? And if you assume you know what is best for others, would that include allowing them to discover their own truth or are your truths the only ones available for consideration?
Ryan: I make absolute statements, it is only your interpretation that I am ordering you around. I speak on what I believe is universally enlightened behavior.
Why are you changing the subject in the middle of the debate? We were not discussing sexual attachment but sex PER SE. Do you know what that means, Ryan? Please don't change the subject. It makes you look evasive and dishonest.sam: Your negative attachment is the belief that sex is negative.
Ryan: Sexual attachment causes suffering, and that is why it is negative. I think it is intelligent to prevent unnecessary suffering. You wouldn’t call it a negative attachment if I had a belief that putting my hand on a stove is negative would you?
I never said he wasn't affected. I said he did not get cancer. You said sugar always causes tooth decay, not that sugar always affects the body. Do you even understand your own analogy? Yeah it affects the body, it affects different bodies differently. Just as sex affects different people differently.sam: False. My father smoked for forty years and never got cancer.
Ryan: That still doesn’t hide the fact that smoking did cause serious damage to his lungs, tissues, and cellular biology. If an autopsy was done, there still would be causal damage. He still wasn't exempt from the causal laws of smoking.
Food can be an attachment the same as sex. You want to treat it differently because people would think you were a jackass if you were to say we shouldn't eat so as not to be attached to food.sam: Are you attached to every piece of food you ingest? You I bet you enjoy some kinds of food as opposed to others. You want to interpret all sexuality through a single lens.
Ryan: Food can not be compared to sex, the sexual experience is more intimately linked with the emotions, especially for women, and that is why it is so evil for men to engage in the act.
Some don't cry, Ryan, some are even happy. The dishonesty appears to be yours in that you want to insist there is only one way to experience life, your way.sam: Why do you try to speak for everyone when clearly you are speaking for yourself?
Ryan: its universal though, have you ever been a funeral? it is group delusion every time. Wives crying for lost husbands, and husbands crying for lost wives. It is an indication that people have lead dishonest lives.
Anyone who thinks that sex does not cause trouble is either of limited intelligence or is not paying attention.maestro wrote:Sam even if Ryan's argument that sex causes a lot of trouble does not hold in an absolute sense it is nevertheless true in most cases. Just like it can happen that sugar does not cause cavitiies in someone, but in general there is a good correlation. In fact were sex (with its pleasure) altogether absent from humanity a lot of suffering would have been avoided.
The one that beats Sam to a pulp :)maestro wrote:which side are you on?
Anything can cause a lot of trouble. That sex causes trouble no doubt has to do with ego. Ryan's approach however is denying the behavior while coddling the cause. It is fundamentalist in nature because it assumes all people react the same to a given behavior and it associates denial with non-attachment. The result is to demonize people for their natural attraction, something that's bound to cause problems, and elevates a behavior (denial) that the ego loves to indulge in. Wouldn't you say that is a problematic way to approach sex?Sam even if Ryan's argument that sex causes a lot of trouble does not hold in an absolute sense it is nevertheless true in most cases.
Sex is not the cause of ego! If it were absent, ego would just find another behavior to inhabit.In fact were sex (with its pleasure) altogether absent from humanity a lot of suffering would have been avoided.
Puhleeeze. The ego causes trouble. Sex is the means because it invites possessiveness and manipulation. In that sense, it is simply a good indicator of where your ego gets stuck.Anyone who thinks that sex does not cause trouble is either of limited intelligence or is not paying attention.
Indeed. We may have to change our subject, unless you think you can cover some new ground. I'm not going to say much different with you.Somebody should formally debate this issue!
Suppose ego were absent in humans, would that mean that you can have sex with anyone willy nilly? Because on what basis would you deny sex to one and allow it to other, except on personal preferences which implies the operation of a dualistic ego, is it?samadhi wrote:Anything can cause a lot of trouble. That sex causes trouble no doubt has to do with ego.
I’m caused to do it, its in my nature, there is very little emotional motivation behind my actions. That is what I mean by not caring. For instance: if you live your entire life in delusion and suffering, you were caused to be that way, I just speak on what I know is universally true.You are contradicting yourself Ryan. If you didn't care, you wouldn't tell people how to live.
I know that is what it sounds like, but honestly, I’m not getting much out of this, it is fairly routine and automatic for me.Of course you do. You like to make pronouncements, which bolsters your ego, but you seem to take no interest in their implications as that would undermine your ego.
Discussing sex and sexual attachment are one in the same to me. People only want to have sex because it is enjoyable and they are programmed genetically to spread their seed, but if the motivation is gone, then there is no point to sex, it is a meaningless experience with potentially harmful affects.We were not discussing sexual attachment but sex PER SE. Do you know what that means, Ryan? Please don't change the subject. It makes you look evasive and dishonest.
You are stretching this argument. Don't object to the fact that I make sweeping generalizations, as this is the only way to convey vast truths that cover the majority of people.. Yes, there is a bit of relativity, as some bodies are a tougher than others, but negative things are generally negative to some degree in all people.I never said he wasn't affected. I said he did not get cancer. You said sugar always causes tooth decay, not that sugar always affects the body. Do you even understand your own analogy? Yeah it affects the body, it affects different bodies differently. Just as sex affects different people differently.
I’ve said on many occasions that food attachment is also a problem when people become addicted to unhealthy foods, or they eat for emotional reasons, rather than to just relieve the hunger urge. And I maintain that masturbation is far more moral to relieve the sexual urge because it doesn't take any victims. Women who dream of long-term romance are not let down.You want to treat it differently because people would think you were a jackass if you were to say we shouldn't eat so as not to be attached to food.
Yes, but the happy ones are just as deluded. Their happiness is an escape from their pain. They create all sorts of bizarre fantasies such as seeing their lost loved one in an afterlife, and imagining them in a better place. Their happiness is a result of neurotic fantasies to soothe the negative emotional affects of decades of emotional attachment. Sad and Happy people at funerals fall under the same camp for me.Some don't cry, Ryan, some are even happy. The dishonesty appears to be yours in that you want to insist there is only one way to experience life, your way.
