Oprah, Eckhart and Enlightenment

[Dan Rowden]

Ode to Oprah

profound feminine flowing whimsy
tipsy topsy turvy flurry
womanish relish unmanly cherish
loosley billowy pillowy flowery
deeply titillating materially inflating
longing larking languid simmering
shimmering feminy watery crazily
deepening darkening wavering maybe
cooing flowing rippling lazily
focusless breezy billowy baby
thoughtless gorgeous appetite hazy
futile fatal fuzzy lady.

Ah, Alex, you finally wrote something worth reading! Yes, that about sums Oprah up, sadly.

[Alex Jacob]

Hey, thanks!

I'm just gettin' warmed up by the way...

Relevant poetry! Relevant poetry!

;-)
___________________________________________

Ryan wrote:

"There is a fear, as I have hurt many women and myself over the years, and I realize that there is something incredibly dangerous about sharing sexual experiences with women in an intense emotional manner. I have had some crazy sexual experiences with women, and they have left me emotionally unstable, confused, sentimental, and craving for more. Sex is mostly about sadism, masochism, domination, submission and sensuality anyway, It involves a certain loss of integrity. Btw, don’t you find the act rather absurd? You know, humping the crap out of another sentient being like some sort of hormone-crazed baboon?"

There is a great deal of truth in what you say, and I have a feeling that many, if they really looked at it, might well agree. Sexuality---the free, libertine sort we know so well---is a dangerous game. You might think it gets less dangerous in, say, a lesbian context (since it is women who complain about the degrading side of man-centered sex) but in descriptions from the lesbian world of SF (in Female Chauvenist Pigs, a recent feminist title) the game can be just as ugly and just as destructive as in the heterosexual world, and in some ways more so.

But it is pretty obvious that it does not have to be like this. The people who engage this way do so for reasons of their own violence, their fear, their sadism, what-have-you.

The Kreutzer Sonata by Tolstoy deals directly and exclusively on this theme. It came out around the turn of the century and was banned for a certain amount of time in Russia and rejected in the US.

[maestro]

Btw, don’t you find the act rather absurd? You know, humping the crap out of another sentient being like some sort of hormone-crazed baboon?
In the end, masturbation is the much more moral choice to relieve the sexual urge.

I think you find the act absurd because of cultural conditioning. Other than that it is one of the highest pleasure giving act and is thus virtually impossible to give up (because of the pain pleasure principle). Centuries of bullshit and dogma heaped and associated with the act means that it is now impossible for anyone to approach sex in a sane manner.

Monogamy and marriage is also a rather bullshit arrangement, which has been further complicated with expectations of emotional fulfillment (read love). Throw sex in the mixture and you have a very anxious and frustrating arrangement.

BTW did you know that Eckhart is married and his wife also gives seminars which this guy attended and asked her how can an enlightened person crave for sex?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=3

[samadhi]

brokenhead,

sam: Give me a break. You are the racist! You think that Oprah's message depends on her race and that everyone's fascination with her is racial. That is being racist.

brokenhead: No, you are the one who cannot discuss race without starting to throw around the accusation of racism. If you had read what I said more carefully, you would see that I did NOT say - or even imply - that Oprah's "message" depends on her race. Nothing could be more absurd!

Here is what you said: Oprah is the big, fat Queen of a little bit of knowledge. She is the One Black Friend that White America has embraced to prove that it is not racist. She is America's safe Negro. Her one talent is that she doesn't speak like an African American unless she has to.

So, you don't think there is a racist message in calling her "America's safe Negro"? What if you had called her "America's dangerous Negro"? Does that make it more clear? And the fact that she doesn't speak like an African American? What if you had said she does speak like an African American? Not racist? No, you aren't condeming her for her racial heritage but praising her for hiding it. That kind of back-handed "compliment" is exactly how racism manifests these days as opposed to the days of outright hatred and abuse.

She doesn't have a message. She has a television show. What I said, sam, and what is patently true, is that she is very aware of the fact that she is a member of a minority. I am saying that it has had a lot to do with her success. If you do not like the way I put it, I frankly don't care. You mustn't be so irrational.

Being a member of a minority is a part of her success because it has influenced what she has had to learn and overcome. That is a positive thing, not something to be disparaged.

sam: You are the racist.

brokenhead: Why are you calling me "the" racist instead of "a" racist?

Don't make a big deal out of the article I used. You said that you didn't call Oprah a racist. Duh. I replied you were the racist I was referring to.

Have I accused you - or Oprah - of racism? If I am implying that racism exists in America, do not be too quick to start calling foul. It's a valid point, I think, and one that many if not most black people would agree with. Sam, I am very careful in my discourse not to label particular people as "racist." I think you should be more careful as well, unless of course you do not assign the seriously negative connotations to the word that most people do.

Your remarks were offensive. Perhaps if I had had more interaction with you prior to this, I wouldn't have come down so hard. But the remarks deserved a response.

brokenhead: But have no doubts whatsoever that if she were white, she would never have been the phenomenon that she has come to be.

sam: This is your racism. For you it is all about race and not what she is actually saying.

brokenhead: See what I mean? "It" is all about race. What is all about race? If this is supposedly what I think, how come I don't know what you are talking about?

Your remark is right there but you don't know what I'm talking about? You don't think it is racist to say she has become what she is because she is black? Yes, it is a part of her heritage but what she has become is a matter of her character, not her race.

And Oprah doesn't really say anything. She has guests that say things. And she has plenty of writers and researchers on staff to help her along. Which is fine.

She says plenty. You don't think her choice of guests and how she chooses to interact with them says anything? Her book-of-the-month club choices don't tell you anything? Starting a school in South Africa for poor black girls doesn't tell you anything? What does she need to do to communicate with you?

sam: Eckhardt is not offering a mainstream teaching. I doubt very much that tens of millions of people would otherwise give him a first look, much less a second, without her spotlight.

brokenhead: So we agree that he is the one with the message.

Just because Eckhart wrote the book doesn't mean Oprah has no message. It just means you don't care to examine her words and actions and decide what it is.

Which I don't even know what it is, since I have never seen him or read anything by him. I have nothing against him whatsoever, or his attempt to reach more people through Oprah. I think it's fabulous. I will hazard a prediction, however: if Eckhardt's message involves brutally honest soul-searching and self-examination, those tens of millions of people who bought the book might try reading it but will quickly put it down and forget about it.

I have said it isn't a mainstream teaching. The fact that Oprah decided to put it into the mainstream is extraordinary and says a lot about her courage.

sam: She is one of the most influential people in the country. You don't think she deserves any credit for where she is today? Do you know anything about her childhood?

brokenhead: Yes, I know she's influential. That's what scares me. And yes, I know all about her childhood. I give her a ton of credit for where she is today. I also think she was in the right place at the right time.

I was responding to you referring to her as a clog. She is a bit more than that apparently.

sam: Look, I'm not asking you to like her. But she is hardly the evil incarnate you want to make her out to be. She is very smart, she is superb in public relations, she connects with people on a level you can't even imagine but feel the need to tear her down for.

brokenhead: You don't know what I can imagine and I am not trying to tear her down. I can't tear her down, because I do not build her up so much in the first place.

I was referring to your comments, not your ability to influence public opinion.

What's with you, sam? Where does "evil incarnate" come from?

The comment may have been hyperbole but it was referring to your racial musings as well as your subsequent disparagements.

You seem to be having an emotional reaction of some sort, which is in line with the "racist" name-calling. I didn't mean to upset you. The truth is, I quite like Oprah. But it's that influence you speak of that I am concerned about. I agree with QRS that women tend to move in herds and most of Oprah's sheep are, in fact, women.

The idea that someone who attracts a following does so because those people are "sheep" speaks much more to your ego than to others' behavior. Why can't someone have genuine ideas and feelings that you fail to appreciate? Is it only when your appreciation is in play that other people can become fully human? You don't have to like her. It doesn't mean there is something wrong with those who do.

sam: But to blame her for her success only shows your own mean-spiritedness.

brokenhead: I don't recall blaming anybody for anything.

How about belittling? Does that sound like what you were doing?

Hey, sam - it was Dan who called Oprah a cunt, not me. Take your disdain out on him. I just see Oprah as an enormously wealthy and influential person. Yet when I look at her, consider her, I remain monumentally uninspired. She is a talk-show host. Good for her.

You know, if you had just said this to begin with, it would have been fine. You're uninspired, great. Others are inspired. I just found your explanation for that demeaning and dismissive. I felt it warranted a reply.

[Dan Rowden]

BTW did you know that Eckhart is married and his wife also gives seminars which this guy attended and asked her how can an enlightened person crave for sex?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=3

He felt the need to apologise for his question? What is wrong with these people!!

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: You are still giving me your description (and a poorly formulated one at that) and not a rule for dealing with it. Any teacher that gives you rules you can be sure is of lesser value simply because a rulegiver is attempting to substitute their thinking and feeling for your own.

Ryan: A truth is a rule though, it is a generalization that universally applies to human nature. I’m merely pointing to a truth using language, and that truth is that pleasure is a source of great suffering for humanity. This truth is fairly foundational, and there is no easier way to say it.

The point in question isn't whether pleasure always causes suffering (I doubt it) but whether you can construct a rule of behavior that will always hold true in all circumstances. You say that one should never have sex if you want to become enlightened. I have asked you to provide a basis for that other than your own personal feelings. Obviously you can't do it but you still want me to believe that your rules of behavior are paramount. Sorry Ryan, I need a bit more than your fear of sex to convince me.

sam: Simply because you cannot imagine a happily married man doesn't mean they don't exist. You keep arguing from your personal perspective and expect me to agree that it must apply to everyone. That is the essence of delusion.

Ryan: No, the essence of delusion is believing that you are exempt from the laws of causality, which dictate to men’s egos that if they become attached to things in an emotional manner then they will suffer for their error. Without absolutes, there is no spirituality at all, only relativism. I maintain that my brain and yours function in a very similar way, and are subject to the same causal consequences in general terms.

Please. Why do you want to equate love and attachment? You simply don't recognize the difference because you have never known love without attachment. If you don't want to investigate the difference, fine, then don't. But don't suggest your unwillingness to grow or widen your own experience justifies condemning others to follow your rigid behaviors.

sam: Right, which you see as assaulting people. So, how is that working for you?

Ryan: Speaking the truth is indeed a form of assault, but in is unintentional.

So assaulting others is fine as long as you can justify it in your mind. What do you think about bin Laden?

sam: Um, as long as you are breathing you will have personal experiences. You cannot avoid them. Your avoidance approach smacks of a fear of life, it is too messy for you and you just can't deal with it.

Ryan: What I mean is that to the enlightened mind, personal experiences are transcended to a more universal experience of the world.

Don't you wish. Here is a clue Ryan. You're human. Stop wishing you weren't and deal with it.

Experiences no longer have such a stranglehold on the brain, the conditioning isn’t as crippling, one isn’t blindly pursuing future pleasures propelled by negative conditioning, the mind has fallen silent to certain types of negative conditioning.

Non-attachment is not about avoidance Ryan.

sam: Why not let her worry about that? After all, she neither wants nor requires your approval.

Ryan: but she is incapable of worrying about her own unconsciousness because she is unconscious, if she was conscious of her unconsciousness then she would cease to be unconscious in the first place. You cannot worry about something that you’re not aware of.

Again, let her worry about it. Your judgment adds nothing to her situation but reveals a good deal of your own.

sam: You haven't answered the question. If she is so unconscious, how could she even recognize Tolle? And again, you are assuming he is ineffective because you don't agree with him. Yet do you really want to compare his results with yours?

Ryan: I didn’t say I disagree with him because he seems to display some degree of wisdom, my disagreement is how he waters down his teachings to make them more appealing to people who will never achieve enlightenment. He is making money off of selling people a product that they'll never be able to use. It would be like selling a handicapped person a pair of downhill skiis.

If he is ineffective, why are his results so much better than yours? You are basing your assessment on a personal viewpoint while dismissing the results that are actually turning up.

sam: Just show me the basis for it in enlightenment teaching.

Ryan: The basis for it is simple, if you engage in attachment activities then you and the other will suffer, that is the will of god. God being the totality of all things. Causality demands that you behave a certain way or else you suffer. I don’t make the rules, I just try to live by them. I don't suggest to be some embodiment of perfection.

Who says love is only about attachment? That would be you. Show me any enlightenment teaching that disparages love.

sam: You have yet to show where any teaching supports your viewpoint.

Ryan: The source of some of the major religions and some of the major philosophers of the world share these views.

Great. Now show me any teaching that disparages love.

sam: You have no idea at all what tantra is yet you want to pretend to know all about it. This is not only ignorance but pernicious ignorance seeking to propogate itself.

Ryan: Tantra may feel spiritual because it can invoke powerful mystical experiences, as similar to many drug experiences, both may open the doors of perception a bit, but playing with such experiences is playing with fire, it can only lead to addiction and a boredom with reality in my opinion. It seems risky.

Fine. You don't like it. I am not asking you to like it. Just understand it and that it contradicts everything you have said.

sam: I get that you don't like sex Ryan. You seem to be afraid of your own emotions and feel that everyone else should be afraid as well. Yet some people aren't. Imagine that.

Ryan: There is a fear, as I have hurt many women and myself over the years, and I realize that there is something incredibly dangerous about sharing sexual experiences with women in an intense emotional manner. I have had some crazy sexual experiences with women, and they have left me emotionally unstable, confused, sentimental, and craving for more. Sex is mostly about sadism, masochism, domination, submission and sensuality anyway, It involves a certain loss of integrity.

I get that this is your experience. That's fine. Deal with your experience but don't pretend that everyone else is bound by it. But you might want to acknowledge that if you can't love someone without wanting to possess them, then you don't really understand what love is, do you? You should take a look at Eckhardt's chapter on intimate relationships, he talks exactly about what you have gone through.

Btw, don’t you find the act rather absurd? You know, humping the crap out of another sentient being like some sort of hormone-crazed baboon?

Oh pluhleeeeeeeze. Do you find eating absurd? Why not? Sex and eating are both behaviors that arise from having a body. Are you ashamed of your body? You seem to be, associating it with a creature you obviously have no respect for. Deal with your shame rather than project it onto everyone else. Believe me, it's a much easier way to go.

In the end, masturbation is the much more moral choice to relieve the sexual urge.

If it works for you, go for it. It's certainly a better alternative than trying to dictate the sexual behavior of others.

[maestro]

Yeah Sam, what actually is love. A word should point to some shared experience. I think it is a vague concept used by everybody from the media to politicians to spiritual hucksters, and is devoid of content. Love has vague good feelings associated with it and everybody uses it without even considering to think what it means.

[brokenhead]

You know, if you had just said this to begin with, it would have been fine. You're uninspired, great. Others are inspired. I just found your explanation for that demeaning and dismissive. I felt it warranted a reply.

Duly noted.

Who knew people could get so worked up about somebody on TV?

[samadhi]

maestro,

Yeah Sam, what actually is love. A word should point to some shared experience. I think it is a vague concept used by everybody from the media to politicians to spiritual hucksters, and is devoid of content. Love has vague good feelings associated with it and everybody uses it without even considering to think what it means.

Well, as much as I would enjoy that conversation, I don't want to turn this thread into a "what is love?" discussion. I do think someone's description of it is a poor substitute for your own experience. If you've never loved anything or anyone, a description is not going to make much difference to you anyway. But if you want to talk about it, start a thread, see what happens.

[Laird]

Sam, congrats to you for your posts to this thread so far. You're really nailing it mate.

[samadhi]

Thanks Laird. I appreciate it.

[Dan Rowden]

Anyone know a good way to get vomit out of a keyboard?

[samadhi]

Is that the best you can do, Dan? Now go run and hide ... lol ...

[Dan Rowden]

Yes, that's the best I can do. What else could that have possibly deserved?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan,

Anyone know a good way to get vomit out of a keyboard?

lol, Agreed, Laird’s translation: Good job mate! Way to support my attachments, give me five! Down low, now to the side…oh too slow…

[Ryan Rudolph]

Maestro,

I think you find the act absurd because of cultural conditioning.

It isn’t cultural conditioning, just examine the act in an unbiased objective eye, and there is something incredibly ridiculous about mounting another being, and proceeding to hump the crap out of them until white liquid squirts out the end of an erect member on your body…I just find the whole situation incredibly absurd!

BTW did you know that Eckhart is married and his wife also gives seminars which this guy attended and asked her how can an enlightened person crave for sex?

Oh, Eckhart is married, that explains a lot…it explains why he doesn’t get down to business.

Alex,

There is a great deal of truth in what you say, and I have a feeling that many, if they really looked at it, might well agree. Sexuality---the free, libertine sort we know so well---is a dangerous game. You might think it gets less dangerous in, say, a lesbian context (since it is women who complain about the degrading side of man-centered sex) but in descriptions from the lesbian world of SF (in Female Chauvenist Pigs, a recent feminist title) the game can be just as ugly and just as destructive as in the heterosexual world, and in some ways more so.

Yes, agreed. I have heard that homosexual sexuality can be just as bizarre, if not, more bizarre than heterosexual sexuality.

I think an enlightened society would reject the institution of marriage wholeheartedly, and by looking at gay pride parades, and pushes for gay marriage, the homosexual community are moving in the wrong direction, while believing they are progressing.

Sam,

Why do you want to equate love and attachment? You simply don't recognize the difference because you have never known love without attachment.

Love without attachment is impossible, there is no other love, besides one of your fancied imagination. There is compassion, which is merely the involuntary impulse to point out people’s errors in reasoning.

The point in question isn't whether pleasure always causes suffering (I doubt it) but whether you can construct a rule of behavior that will always hold true in all circumstances. You say that one should never have sex if you want to become enlightened. I have asked you to provide a basis for that other than your own personal feelings.

Examine your own life in an honest way, and reflect on past behavior, and the truth will come to you, I shouldn’t have to tell you that attachment to the sexual act leads to confusion and suffering.

So assaulting others is fine as long as you can justify it in your mind. What do you think about bin Laden?

Bin laden uses bombs, I use reason. Two totally different weapons. One is moral, while the other is immoral.

Don't you wish. Here is a clue Ryan. You're human. Stop wishing you weren't and deal with it.

yes, we are human, but sharing sexual experiences with each other is divisive.

Non-attachment is not about avoidance Ryan.

Yes it is, For instance: if I wanted to be non-attached to chocolate ice cream, I would stay clear of that part of the grocery store until my mind has become unattached, and then I can walk by without the craving to buy it. Avoidance is very necessary.

If he is ineffective, why are his results so much better than yours? You are basing your assessment on a personal viewpoint while dismissing the results that are actually turning up.

I don’t have a teaching, I’ve never compiled anything, but his teachings are clearly less effective than other teachings out there. If you use too many vague abstractions, people won’t change at all, and that is what he does for the most part. \

Who says love is only about attachment? That would be you. Show me any enlightenment teaching that disparages love.

Love is a disease on the earth, and cold reason is the cure. Don’t believe the Bryan Adams hype! love is caused by self interest. People marry because they are lonely, insecure, frightened of death, frightened of being alone, and all the rest of it. There is nothing selfless about love.

Just understand it and that it contradicts everything you have said.

Not really. Tantra is nothing special, it just overwhelms the brain with sensual stimulus, its no different than getting high, or staying up all night.

I get that this is your experience. That's fine. Deal with your experience but don't pretend that everyone else is bound by it. But you might want to acknowledge that if you can't love someone without wanting to possess them, then you don't really understand what love is, do you? You should take a look at Eckhardt's chapter on intimate relationships, he talks exactly about what you have gone through.

If Echhardt isn’t advocating abandoning marriage and women, then he isn’t the real deal, it is impossible to share intimate experiences with another without emotional attachment, and some degree of possession.

Oh pluhleeeeeeeze. Do you find eating absurd? Why not? Sex and eating are both behaviors that arise from having a body. Are you ashamed of your body? You seem to be, associating it with a creature you obviously have no respect for. Deal with your shame rather than project it onto everyone else. Believe me, it's a much easier way to go.

No, I’m not ashamed, just honest about the danger of the sexual experience. Sex isn’t a necessity, but food is. The body needs energy to function, but you don’t need to have sex with other beings to function, there is a big difference. Although being overly attached to food can cause similar tragedies such as obesity and disease, but attachment to the sexual experience causes the deepest psychological conflict in my opinion.

If it works for you, go for it. It's certainly a better alternative than trying to dictate the sexual behavior of others.

It is only an honest attempt to reason to your irrational attachment to Tantra sex and romantic love.

Well, as much as I would enjoy that conversation, I don't want to turn this thread into a "what is love?" discussion. I do think someone's description of it is a poor substitute for your own experience. If you've never loved anything or anyone, a description is not going to make much difference to you anyway. But if you want to talk about it, start a thread, see what happens.

if I may , Here is a quick running definition – love is a chemical imbalance that causes men to live tragic lives, bound to women, and bound to slavish toil to keep her happy, and keep her offspring alive.

[samadhi]

Yes, that's the best I can do. What else could that have possibly deserved?

Well, I'm still waiting for your reply. You seem to be at a loss for words on that.

[Dan Rowden]

Reply to what? Your post on page 3? There's a lot to reply to there. You and Laird got ants in your pants or something?

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: Why do you want to equate love and attachment? You simply don't recognize the difference because you have never known love without attachment.

Ryan: Love without attachment is impossible, there is no other love, besides one of your fancied imagination. There is compassion, which is merely the involuntary impulse to point out people’s errors in reasoning.

Yes, I understand it is outside of your experience. But why pretend to know everyone else's experience?

sam: The point in question isn't whether pleasure always causes suffering (I doubt it) but whether you can construct a rule of behavior that will always hold true in all circumstances. You say that one should never have sex if you want to become enlightened. I have asked you to provide a basis for that other than your own personal feelings.

Ryan: Examine your own life in an honest way, and reflect on past behavior, and the truth will come to you, I shouldn’t have to tell you that attachment to the sexual act leads to confusion and suffering.

Yes Ryan, attachment to sex can be a problem. So don't attach to it.

sam: So assaulting others is fine as long as you can justify it in your mind. What do you think about bin Laden?

Ryan: Bin laden uses bombs, I use reason. Two totally different weapons. One is moral, while the other is immoral.

Bin Laden also talks about knowing what is good for everyone else. You two have much in common.

sam: Don't you wish. Here is a clue Ryan. You're human. Stop wishing you weren't and deal with it.

Ryan: yes, we are human, but sharing sexual experiences with each other is divisive.

lol ...

sam: Non-attachment is not about avoidance Ryan.

Ryan: Yes it is, For instance: if I wanted to be non-attached to chocolate ice cream, I would stay clear of that part of the grocery store until my mind has become unattached, and then I can walk by without the craving to buy it. Avoidance is very necessary.

Even if you were to avoid it, you are still attached to it by your avoidance. Remember Spirituality 101?, what you resist persists, sound familiar?

sam: If he is ineffective, why are his results so much better than yours? You are basing your assessment on a personal viewpoint while dismissing the results that are actually turning up.

Ryan: I don’t have a teaching, I’ve never compiled anything, but his teachings are clearly less effective than other teachings out there. If you use too many vague abstractions, people won’t change at all, and that is what he does for the most part.

You say he is ineffective yet he is helping more people than the Buddha. Go figure.

sam: Who says love is only about attachment? That would be you. Show me any enlightenment teaching that disparages love.

Ryan: Love is a disease on the earth, and cold reason is the cure. Don’t believe the Bryan Adams hype! love is caused by self interest. People marry because they are lonely, insecure, frightened of death, frightened of being alone, and all the rest of it. There is nothing selfless about love.

Don't love then, no one is forcing you to.

sam: Just understand it and that it contradicts everything you have said.

Ryan: Not really. Tantra is nothing special, it just overwhelms the brain with sensual stimulus, its no different than getting high, or staying up all night.

Do your homework, Ryan, your ignorance is getting old.

sam: I get that this is your experience. That's fine. Deal with your experience but don't pretend that everyone else is bound by it. But you might want to acknowledge that if you can't love someone without wanting to possess them, then you don't really understand what love is, do you? You should take a look at Eckhardt's chapter on intimate relationships, he talks exactly about what you have gone through.

Ryan: If Echhardt isn’t advocating abandoning marriage and women, then he isn’t the real deal, it is impossible to share intimate experiences with another without emotional attachment, and some degree of possession.

I have his chapter on spiritual relationships available. Do you want to discuss it? If so, I will start the thread.

sam: Oh pluhleeeeeeeze. Do you find eating absurd? Why not? Sex and eating are both behaviors that arise from having a body. Are you ashamed of your body? You seem to be, associating it with a creature you obviously have no respect for. Deal with your shame rather than project it onto everyone else. Believe me, it's a much easier way to go.

Ryan: No, I’m not ashamed, just honest about the danger of the sexual experience. Sex isn’t a necessity, but food is. The body needs energy to function, but you don’t need to have sex with other beings to function, there is a big difference. Although being overly attached to food is cause similar tragedies such as obesity and disease, but attachment to the sexual experience causes the deepest psychological conflict in my opinion.

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.

The problem here is that you see no alternative to attachment other than avoidance. But plainly your attachment to sex, in spite of (actually, because of) your avoidance, is obvious, it is simply a negative attachment. It rules you. You are actually a perfect example of the trouble with avoidance, it binds you more tightly to the object you want to avoid. Do you remember Jimmy Swaggart? He was also on a crusade against sex, lusting in his heart all the while. I imagine your fate is the same.

[Dan Rowden]

OMG, I'm even getting Oprah and Tolle event advertisements in my Skype window! Egads.

[Ataraxia]

Oh, Eckhart is married, that explains a lot…it explains why he doesn’t get down to business.

Tough, but (theoretically) fair.

Now he's married to Oprah as well.Truly fucked.

[Laird]

Anyone know a good way to get vomit out of a keyboard?

Just buy a new one, Dan, they're cheap enough. Speaking of cheap...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

But why pretend to know everyone else's experience?

Because generally speaking the brain works the same in all individuals.

Yes Ryan, attachment to sex can be a problem. So don't attach to it.

Yes, by not doing it. If one is no longer attached to sex, there is no longer a strong motivation to do it with other people because the experience is seen as worthless, although the sexual urge still maybe present.

Bin Laden also talks about knowing what is good for everyone else.

that is what philosophers do. Any half decent philosopher knows what is good for other people because he knows what is good for himself. Although I’m indifferent emotionally to what you do, 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.

Even if you were to avoid it, you are still attached to it by your avoidance. Remember Spirituality 101?,

No, you are totally wrong on this one. IF you give up something totally through avoiding it, then there comes a time through a reverse conditioning process that the thing you gave up totally leaves your mind. For instance: if you avoid alcohol for long enough, your mind will no longer crave alcohol, and it will fall totally silent to that desire, hence you are free from an attachment to alcohol. The mind can only fall silent to the desire of something if you avoid what it is the mind craves.

You say he is ineffective yet he is helping more people than the Buddha. Go figure.

People are listening, but I suspect very few will change significantly.

Don't love then, no one is forcing you to.

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, Ryan, your ignorance is getting old.

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.

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.

Eating is rather odd too when you think about it, but it is absolutely necessary for my survival so I accept it. However, Frequent Sex with a partner isn’t absolutely necessary for my survival, and actually harmful to my wellbeing. Btw, the species could still continue if sex was strictly for reproduction, but it has turned into an entertainment similar to action movies or video games, it is a cancer on the soul.

The problem here is that you see no alternative to attachment other than avoidance. But plainly your attachment to sex, in spite of (actually, because of) your avoidance, is obvious, it is simply a negative attachment. It rules you. You are actually a perfect example of the trouble with avoidance, it binds you more tightly to the object you want to avoid. Do you remember Jimmy Swaggart? He was also on a crusade against sex, lusting in his heart all the while. I imagine your fate is the same.

You have it all wrong, my testersterone levels have been dropping significantly over the last few years, and with it, goes my sex drive. The urge isn’t as frequent these days, and when it comes, it can be quickly relieved with masburbation. I just think so it is foolish to glorify the sexual act with Tantra and love and all that nonsense. The animal world doesn’t have knowledge of romantic love or Tantra, they just hump to keep the species alive. It is so silly what humans have done with the sexual experience, they have put it up on some sort of emotional pedestal, as some sort of peak experience. The truth is that the sexual experience makes many people miserable because they cannot see clearly how worthless the experience really is.

[brokenhead]

Hey Ryan - could you please attribute the quotes you are using in your posts so we know who you are reponding to? Thanks.

[Dan Rowden]

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.