GENIUS FORUMS

Sam,

Anything can be interpreted and everything is, so that in itself cannot be an objection. Tolle is very straightforward and blunt in pointing to the ego. But no, he doesn't give you a set of rules. He is not a kindergarten teacher. If you want rules, go to church.

A truth can be thought of as a rule. For instance: Pleasure as the cause of humanities pain is an absolute rule.

Your point seems to be that he doesn't advocate monkhood for everyone. If you think the only way to approach the ego is by renunciation, then I suggest you do so. But no teacher of enlightenment has said monkhood is a must for everyone. You need to do your homework.

Not monk hood, just solitude. A mind that is not inwardly silent is not enlightened. I have yet to read a good philosophical teaching that came from a happily married man. Actually a happily married man is a contradiction of terms, he is only temporarily happy until he loses his vain attachment then he is miserable.

And you assume all egos need is a good spanking as if a good spanking is the only effective way to teach. Do you really believe that? Show me how the Buddha beat everyone up. Show me how the Tao is about beating up people. I'm listening.

The buddha’s teachings were pretty blunt. He said things like: Life is suffering, nirvana is a state of non-attachment to all sensual things. Taoism was much less effective because it is a bit more poetic and flowery. It was harder to decipher the true meaning for most people.

Well, I've invited you to back up your assertion that there is only one effective way to teach. In fact, you seem to be another run-of-the-mill fundamentalist insisting on telling us there is only one true path.

Some teachings are more effective than others, this is pretty much irrefutable, and as a philosopher, I’m concerned with the most effective and efficient way of speaking.

Really. Well, that wouldn't have helped you, would it? And what makes sexuality dishonest? Is it the same thing that makes eating dishonest, that we enjoy it?

We use both to escape reality, sex and food are both held up on a pedestal as holy grails of personal egotistical experiences. As long as the ego strongly values personal experiences, enlightenment is impossible.

Why not let her decide that? Is your judgment really necessary for her spiritual growth?

Her judgment isn’t worth much though because she is unconscious.

Yes, exactly! You are arguing that she has base motives and yet she features a teacher of enlightenment on her program. She obviously isn't as unconscious as you say she is.

but she doesn’t understand what he is truly saying or else her show wouldn’t be so superficial. Tolle has adapted a clever technique of sheltering people’s egos by using vague abstractions. He doesn’t speak directly to the ego, he circumvents it. If he spoke directly to their egos, people wouldn't be so entertained by his lectures, they'd be running out the door offended, and in pain.

But I am asking you what the rule is for dealing with that, not for describing it.

The rule for dealing with it is to not engage in the activities that cause it, IE: romantic love.

It doesn't mean he can't present an effective message and influence a great many people while not teaching that everyone must become a monk.

If people stay married, and continue living as they are living, his message is a waste of time, he might as well be talking about sports.

Sexuality has been used for achieving enlightenment in the past, are you aware of that? Apparently not. So you don't like sex, don't make it everyone else's problem. The Catholic church has done enough in that area already. How has it worked for them?

Yes, they have that tradition in India, and it has lead to a lot of group sex orgies, but not too many enlightened sages. Although, I’m not saying that one should try to suppress the sexual urge, but having sentimental sex with another person is the highest form of spiritual dishonesty. People are an extension of yourself, and to leech gratification off another for pleasurable purposes causes confusion, suffering and division. In the West, the Hippies had a similar self-gratification movement, and it was fairly 'groovy', but not all that enlightening.

Moreover, A large percentage of humanities psychological problems can be traced back to a assigning an over importance to the sex urge, and desiring to secure particular sexual experiences with particular people, and there is the cause of all the misery.

samadhi wrote:You use racism to make your point? Your racism reflects on you, not Oprah.

I never said Oprah is a racist. But have no doubts whatsoever that if she were white, she would never have been the phenomenon that she has come to be. Why is it that as soon as you make an observation concerning race, the word racism comes up? I was merely making a point. Don't think for a second she hasn't parlayed the fact that she is black and a minority into the success of Harpo Enterprises. Be careful with the "r" word, samadhi.

She markets, that's her thing. She also does a hell of a lot of charity as well as providing spiritual perspectives for a mass audience that would otherwise never glimpse them. But you don't like marketing so that's all you see.

How do you know her audience would otherwise never glimpse spiritual perspectives? And I'm not sure which spiritual perspectives you are speaking of. The makeovers? Putting presents under the seats in the studio audience?

Listen, Oprah is a clog. She is not mean-spirited, not that I can see anyway, but does she deserve all the adulation and attention she gets? Why should we even be discussing her? Droves of middle-American housewives spend their hubands' hard-earned money on trinkets with an "O" emblazoned on them. I'm just glad I'm not one of those husbands. But I hear it from them. "Oprah's Book Club." You need to join a club to read a book? You get the feeling that these women would line up to jump off a roof if Oprah said it was okay. It's too many people buying the same book. IMO, of course.

[When you see posts of mine in this kind of parentheses, it is meant to be 'golf whisper' and as such is not intended to interrupt or derail an ongoing conversation...]

[Sssshhhhh...

[Ryan wrote:

["Yes, they have that tradition in India, and it has lead to a lot of group sex orgies, but not too many enlightened sages. Although, I’m not saying that one should try to suppress the sexual urge, but having sentimental sex with another person is the highest form of spiritual dishonesty. People are an extension of yourself, and to leech gratification off another for pleasurable purposes causes confusion, suffering and division. In the West, the Hippies had a similar self-gratification movement, and it was fairly 'groovy', but not all that enlightening."

[There is a whole branch of shastra that seeks to assign a healthy place to male-female sexual relationship. You can find some of it in Ananga Ranga, the Kama Sutra, and other places. The yoga science of stimulating the sex-centers and 'channelling' the energy to other areas, or using the energy in worship, ia another discipline that is part of the Hindu canon. I will grant you that every time a young, lithe Hindu girl invites me to 'come practice Tantra with me!' (with that adorable Indian lilt!) I always get confused and imagine she's inviting me to an orgy with her and her friends. Can't tell you how many times I've got that wrong! She was inviting me over to 'circulate energy and offer it to God' and all I could think of was getting her legs up in the air...lowly worm human that I am!

[Perhaps a realistic 'ideal' of the Indian school is as follows: A friend of mine who lived in an Ashram had a big attraction to a very beautiful Indian woman who often came. He tried to suppress his attraction and his guru noticed it. He gestured to my friend by putting jis finger to his lips in a kiss, and then gestured 'no' by moving his finger in traditional 'no' symbol. Them he made the motion of a loop going from the genitles up the front of the body to the head and back down again, repeating it various times. The implication being that the physical expression is avoided, but the energy allowed to circulate.]

[Personally, I think that sentimental sex should be encouraged, for the masses at least. We on the other hand must hold ourselves to another standard.]

[Carry on...]

samadhi wrote:Dan,

Dan: she's a demented new age cunt with a fixation for wealth and status and the superficiality of physical appearance.

sam: Your prejudice speaks loud and clear.

Dan: True enough, I do have a prejudice for the truth.

Now Dan, I know you want to portray yourself in the most favorable light possible but calling someone "a demented new age cunt" is hardly reflective of a noble demeanor, not to mention right speech.

What I said is right, so it falls neatly within that category. And Sam, don't throw religious gibberish at me; you know I have no time for that sort of thing.

As even an ordinary man would have no trouble seeing a shitload of prejudice in your words, surely a sincere, proud and esteemed man of the infinite like yourself might want to reconsider where his prejudice actually lies.

You really don't see the darkness in Oprah's nature, do you, and I mean aside from the profound feminine flowing whimsy? Take the rose-coloureds off for a bit, Sam, will ya?

Dan: As for Tolle, anyone who says stuff like: "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" isn't worth considering further, despite the fact that they might trot out quality Zen or Taoist teachings, as Tolle certainly does.

sam: People have feelings as well as thoughts. Why pay attention to one and not the other?

Dan: That's not what Tolle said.

Well, it's a place to start, isn't it? You want to give no weight to feelings versus thoughts. Eckhart suggests feelings may be more important than thoughts.

No, his quote explicitly states the superiority of feelings in that endeavour. Stop playing spin doctor to these guys, Sam. It's unedifying. The way you attempt to shield these people from all and every form of criticism makes you look like a fanatical religious devotee.

Before you can reach that point, you must at least consider giving them an examination before a curt dismissal.

What I curtly dismissed was Tolle's statement. Feelings should never be ignored, but feelings are only data - they don't provide understanding.

How else could you begin to see whether there is any value there?

By thinking, how else?

Dan: When such people begin to speak from their own authority, nonsense usually follows. But I can understand why you like him, Sam. He makes money from his half baked eastern philosophy act (I mean, packs of "inspiration cards" at $18 a pop - you want me to take that sort of shit seriously?).

sam: You insinuate that money per se is a problem. On what basis do you propose that? The Buddha himself taught right livelihood, not to never spend money.

Dan: I don't propose that money, per se, is a problem. What I propose is a problem is when spirituality and its teachings become a business enterprise. Tolle's official website is typical of new age guru enterprise at work.

Okay. My point isn't to convince you of Tolle's bona fides but merely to show that engaging in commerce is not necessarily the unforgiveable sin you make it out to be.

I think it is when it manifests as an enterprise first and foremost. Tolle's official website is an insult. If it wasn't for devotees of his teachings creating their own websites no poor person could ever access them. At least Adya makes a token gesture at providing free stuff at his website. I don't think you have even the foggiest appreciation for the dangers inherent in turning a spiritual crusade into such an enterprise. And frankly, I don't believe you're interesting in knowing about them. But hey, at least Tolle offers: "Save 20% or more on every purchase" for his audio downloads (mostly over $17 a pop).

I mean, seriously, Sam. Oprah Winbag is one of the wealthiest women in the world. If she actually believes in this stuff she could fund Tolle's activities entirely, without it putting a dent in her empire that even her accountant would notice.

If someone sells the Tao Te Ching in a book store as opposed to a work of fiction, it doesn't mean the seller is engaging in some nefarious activity.

It does if there's no reason they could also make it available for free over the Internet. When Tolle and Winbag start doing that I'll start listening to your point of view.

Information in our society is a commodity whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

I can acknowledge that whilst also acknowledging the fact that it needn't be.

Dissemination of information in our society does require mass media and mass media is a commercial enterprise.

It's also mostly pure evil. Messing with the devil is a dangerous thing to do.

Your objection would be more credible if it were linked to some kind of misuse of funds or abuse of trust.

You don't get it, do you.

Absent that evidence, you are appealing to our cyncism, i.e. others have abused our trust and thus he must be doing so as well. That really isn't a good argument to make, especially from someone like you who purports to love the truth but who appears otherwise willing to deal in innuedo when it conforms to his prejudice.

There's is exactly zero "innuendo" in a single one of my posts. There is no reason that Tolle needs to extract a pound of flesh for his teachings. None at all.

And frankly, as I said earlier, when teachers like him begin to speak from their own minds rather than trotting out Zen and Taoist teachings (which anyone at all can do) they begin to speak gibberish, as in this bit from his Q&A page:

Q - How do I teach my children to live in the present moment?
A - Eckhart has said that one of the best ways to teach children is by example...[....]

Yeah, like children have to be taught how to live in the moment. Give me a break. But hey, I did like his pet dog and cat in the photo gallery. Wisdom is just oozing out of him in those shots. Let's take a peek at how/why guys like him screw things up; from his "Dear Exchart" page:

Question:

You often use phrases such as "true alignment with life" and "inner alignment with what is". How can we ever be out of alignment with what is? Surely what is is WHAT IS and must include confusion, resistance and non surrender to the present moment.

Answer:
What you say is the truth. As long as that truth is not recognized, however, there is suffering (which of course is part of what is.) As soon as it is recognized, a new dimension arises: awareness, Presence. This is the awakening, the shift, the transcendence of suffering. So, when I say alignment with life I mean conscious alignment. Non-surrender to the present moment is ultimately only non-recognition that you are already one with what is. This is the illusion of separation (which, of course, also has its rightful place within the totality). So we are all on a journey from unconscious to conscious alignment with life. (Please see also A New Earth, page 163/64 for another perspective on this).

Note my bolded emphasis. That one sentence completely stuffed up that answer. It's the sort of rubbish that these guys throw into their answers to make people feel like they're on a path that they aren't on at all. I have no doubt his writings are permeated with this sort of "get our of jail free" card.

By and large, I don't mind what Tolle says, but in the final washup, he says things that totally undermine his value, e.g.

When stillness becomes conscious, the spiritual dimension enters your life and you begin to be guided by an intelligence far greater than the human mind.

Carl G wrote:Dan wrote:

The teacher paradigm is a very particular thing. Anytime I see the label "teacher" I get a bad feeling.

For that reason do the Buddha and Jesus give you a bad feeling?

To the degree that they either labeled themselves, or passively allowed the labeling of themselves that way, I'd have a bad feeling.

Dave Toast wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:What I propose is a problem is when spirituality and its teachings become a business enterprise. Tolle's official website is typical of new age guru enterprise at work.

Right enough but, were you to read his books, you'd see he's anything but the typical new age guru.

I'm prepared to accept that based on what I've read. But he too often lapses into that mode for me. And too much of his teaching is outright crap anyway.

I've heard it suggested that the buddha might have founded buddhism, antithetical though such an enterprise seems in light of his teaching, in order to better ensure the survival of wisdom, via a necessary evil. In light of this aim, it's obvious that the nature of society and culture dictate that sometimes you will have to get your hands dirty, as far as idealism is concerned. Perhaps Tolle understands this all too well.

I don't think he does. He is consorting with the devil. If he doesn't see that doing so will dilute his message in the eyes of those most likely to benefit, that message will be wasted.

maestro wrote:

Dan: As for Tolle, anyone who says stuff like: "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" isn't worth considering further, despite the fact that they might trot out quality Zen or Taoist teachings, as Tolle certainly does.

I agree with Tolle, feeling gives you a far accurate state of yourself then thinking.

Yeah? How? What information is contained in a feeling? What truth?

Most people try to cover up their emotional states with constant thinking, thus suppressing the actual feeling.

What most people call "thinking" is actually feeling based mind blather. Their thinking is merely part of an emotional state; there's no covering going on. The only thinking that occurs is that which allows a person to identify the feeling.

Thinking and feeling are actually all one interconnected system, and due to this habit a constant source of conflict is created. He is trying to help you acknowledge and possibly heal this split.

What he refers to as "thinking" isn't real thinking, it's simply emotion and ego driven movement of the intellect. It's mind babble. I'm all for stilling the mind and stopping that kind of thing, but not for the purpose of getting in touch with "feelings"; rather for the purpose of allowing actual thought to occur.

Dan wrote:

Sam wrote:Anyone who promotes the "teacher" paradigm is bad news by default.

I'm not sure where this is coming from.

I know, and that, as ever, is the problem. You really need a spiritual referdex, Sam, so you can find your way around :)

You yourself had a teacher and refer to them as well as promote your own teachings.

I did not have teachers and do not promote myself as a teacher. It's only people with a student-fixated mindset that see things that way. I repudiate that mindset.

Dan Rowden wrote: Yeah? How? What information is contained in a feeling? What truth?

For example if I hate my job, but I always think positive and energizing thoughts to avoid facing my hatred. Then the feeling reflects my true attitude towards the work and not my thoughts.

DT: If you're asking how many may eventually be caused to seek enlightenment in earnest due to Tolle's influence, the answer is almost definitely very many more than the number caused to do such by the influence of the GF admins. Statistically, I don't think there's an argument against that. I mean, look at the quantities involved instead of your preconceptions, inevitably painted with a broad and vague brush stroke, about the quality.

Ryan: So you wanna talk statistics eh Dave? Do you know who the majority of Oprah’s regular viewers are? young and middle-aged Women – mostly mothers who do not work. So of the 3.5 million people reading his book, most are women, so I would say at least 3 million of them probably wouldn’t even finish Tolle’s book, and if they do, most wont have understood what the hell he is talking about, And the clever ones that get through it will merely take bits and pieces they like, so that they’ll have some new hip catch phrases to express with their friends.

This is very greedy reductionism Ryan. It boils down a litre of water until only a tiny solid residue remains, then throws the 999ml of distilled water away. It attempts to delineate infinite causal chains by means of only the most gross, cursory analysis of a few arbitrary pieces of information. There are so many factors it doesn't consider, so many more it does not avail itself of and so very many more it cannot know or predict.

The premise of 'hitting the numbers' recognises the inability of even a far more thorough and informed analysis to delineate the kind of causal chains the above attempts. It simply puts it out there to as many as it can, in as digestable a manner as it can, and crosses its fingers.

Here is a hypothetical example of Oprah's spiritual affects on the masses:

Jennifer: So did you like go out with Kevin last night?
Nicole: yeah, and it was like so fun cause we like seen that new Tom Cruise movie that Kevin wanted to see, and you know what made the movie so much better?
Jennifer: What?
Nicole: I was like so in the "Now" like in Tolle's book, I think I am really making progress.
Jennifer: Totally, I'm gonna have to like so read that book too.

Very creative Ryan, and worthless.

That time would've been better spent addressing the other point put to you. Here it is again:

Ryan: A life of truth is rigorous. It isn't merely a casual entertaining intellectual exercise, it involves a total restructuring of ones brain in conjunction with a total restructuring of ones daily habits.

DT: And yet one first needs to be introduced to such ideas unless one formulates them oneself. It baffles me how those experienced in spiritual thought often forget about the importance of remedial teachings.

It's like a Cambridge graduate in linguistics forgetting the importance of learning the alphabet, even though they themselves had to do their ABCs, before they went on to learn the potentially shocking world of words like malignant.

Maestro wrote:

Dan wrote:Yeah? How? What information is contained in a feeling? What truth?

For example if I hate my job, but I always think positive and energizing thoughts to avoid facing my hatred. Then the feeling reflects my true attitude towards the work and not my thoughts.

But it isn't the feeling that tells you that. It's your intellect that connects the feeling to the cause. I understand how forms of thinking can mask feelings - i.e. that we can lie to ourselves - but my point is that the feeling doesn't convey information in itself. The way you overcome that situation is to stop thinking falsely, not by feeling truly. It's the quality of the thinking that ultimately provides genuine information (or breaks down false information). We always knew the truth about the feeling which is why we made the effort to build walls of cognitive dissonance around it.

But if a lifetime of brainwashing has caused false concepts and habitual thought patterns, then the truth may be first discovered in the experience of the feeling without verbalization, and then the thoughts aligned with the reality of the feeling.

Anyhow thought and feeling is one system. There is no thought process independent of feeling. Words are associated with feelings and feelings evoke certain thoughts. The point is to end the conflict in this system. Deep intimacy with your feelings is a good first step towards getting familiar with the workings of the system.

DT: were you to read his books, you'd see he's anything but the typical new age guru.

Dan: I'm prepared to accept that based on what I've read. But he too often lapses into that mode for me.

Wouldn't that be true of almost any teacher for you though Dan? He doesn't write for you.

And too much of his teaching is outright crap anyway.

Well that's partly connected to the above but you're probably right. It's been a long time since I read it.

DT: I've heard it suggested that the buddha might have founded buddhism, antithetical though such an enterprise seems in light of his teaching, in order to better ensure the survival of wisdom, via a necessary evil. In light of this aim, it's obvious that the nature of society and culture dictate that sometimes you will have to get your hands dirty, as far as idealism is concerned. Perhaps Tolle understands this all too well.

Dan: I don't think he does. He is consorting with the devil.

Then the buddha was consorting with the devil in founding buddhism.

If he doesn't see that doing so will dilute his message in the eyes of those most likely to benefit, that message will be wasted.

Maybe, the way he sees it, the gains outweigh the losses. Perhaps he has a different view of what his message is and who it's pitched at than you do. Possibly he's aiming at a different 'those most likely to benefit' to the ones your thinking of. (I've run out of similies so) Maybe he's considering the likes of what I've put to Ryan.

Dave,

I'm more specifically thinking about Oprah here (in my reference to consorting with the devil) rather than Tolle's general attempts to find a broader market for his product. Frankly, if he can't see she's bad news then there's a problem right there.

Couple of years ago my friend recommended that I read his power of Now. I was very skeptical of Eckhart, and his Oprah connections also I was reading Krishnamurti those days and was very critical of spiritual teachers. On a trip to the local library I picked up his book and was unable to put it down, until I almost finished it. Since then I have learnt that one should not reject anyone out of hand. I again read his book a few months ago and was still amazed by the clarity and the techniques contained therein for greater awareness. I can understand the viewpoint of the opponents here, since on video he does come across as somewhat of a poseur and not too impressive. Also I think he has to create new concepts (like the pain body) since the ideas he are trying to convey have no words in the common language. He does however explain these concepts well enough in his book.

I agree that no-one should be dismissed out of hand, and I'll go so far as to say that even though they make obvious errors it doesn't make them worthless. I'd much rather people read Tolle than other popular and true New Age authors like Dwyer and Chopra and co, who are basically marketing machines in their own right. It's important though that Tolle guards against the ways in which his entire message might be undermined by simple yet powerful rhetorical compromises and appeals to sentiment in his wrirings

Time will tell if Tolle finds himself seduced by the world those pretenders have woven for themselves. Hooking up with a mindless individual like Oprah is a bad sign. He needs to rethink his marketing strategies and who he finds himself beholding to in that sense.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Df,

The only "rules" one needs to follow are to be directing of attention and accepting of beliefs. Acceptance itself neutralizes beliefs, so that rules are no longer "rules." They are choices. All choices have consequences, but there are no ultimately Right or True or Good consequences that contrast with Wrong or False or Evil consequences. "Truth" is not something that can be denied. If you deny or attach, it is not the "ultimate." Truth is not a thought or a set of thoughts. It is actually very simple, and not so serious!

You are incorrect. Some choices always have negative consequences, like getting married, sleeping in the same bed with someone, making long term plans with someone, engaging in regular sexual intercourse with someone, these choices always have disastrous spiritual affects, all the time, every time. The man destroys his soul when he commits to a woman intimately, and that is why the truth is so serious. A series of wrong choices results in a total destruction of his soul.

Is that based on your experience? That has not been my experience--and if my experience is wrong, there is no right!

Absolutes and "Always" are always the result of abstraction, never experience. Always!

Dan Rowden wrote:You really don't see the darkness in Oprah's nature, do you, and I mean aside from the profound feminine flowing whimsy? Take the rose-coloureds off for a bit, Sam, will ya?

Oprah's one "failing" is her lack of acceptance. It clouds her vision, though vision she has.

Let's take a peek at how/why guys like him screw things up; from his "Dear Exchart" page:

Question:

You often use phrases such as "true alignment with life" and "inner alignment with what is". How can we ever be out of alignment with what is? Surely what is is WHAT IS and must include confusion, resistance and non surrender to the present moment.

Answer:
What you say is the truth. As long as that truth is not recognized, however, there is suffering (which of course is part of what is.) As soon as it is recognized, a new dimension arises: awareness, Presence. This is the awakening, the shift, the transcendence of suffering. So, when I say alignment with life I mean conscious alignment. Non-surrender to the present moment is ultimately only non-recognition that you are already one with what is. This is the illusion of separation (which, of course, also has its rightful place within the totality). So we are all on a journey from unconscious to conscious alignment with life. (Please see also A New Earth, page 163/64 for another perspective on this).

Note my bolded emphasis. That one sentence completely stuffed up that answer. It's the sort of rubbish that these guys throw into their answers to make people feel like they're on a path that they aren't on at all. I have no doubt his writings are permeated with this sort of "get our of jail free" card.

The sentence had everything to do with what he had just stated. How is his "journey from unconscious to conscious alignment" different from your "feminine to masculine"?

By and large, I don't mind what Tolle says, but in the final washup, he says things that totally undermine his value, e.g.

When stillness becomes conscious, the spiritual dimension enters your life and you begin to be guided by an intelligence far greater than the human mind.

What is the problem here?

Someone: By and large, I don't mind what Tolle says, but in the final wash-up, he says things that totally undermine his value, e.g. 'When stillness becomes conscious, the spiritual dimension enters your life and you begin to be guided by an intelligence far greater than the human mind.'

DF asks: What's the problem with that?

I think he would answer that the mind has to be entirely present and should not be undermined.

If spirituality ever gets to be mediated by mass corporate culture, and if the great masses are guided 'by an intelligence far greater than the human mind', and if this social and cultural being (the social body) does not really have the sort of preparation for 'free-thought' and a basis of spiritual relationship, you could then almost imagine a sort of cultural hypnotism, a Brave New World numbing-out.

To imply there is a 'spiritual intelligence' out there somewhere that replaces our own minds, or that can operate through our own minds even if they are empty minds, placid minds, malleable minds, is a freaky subject if you ask me.

Ryan,

sam: Anything can be interpreted and everything is, so that in itself cannot be an objection. Tolle is very straightforward and blunt in pointing to the ego. But no, he doesn't give you a set of rules. He is not a kindergarten teacher. If you want rules, go to church.

Ryan: A truth can be thought of as a rule. For instance: Pleasure as the cause of humanities pain is an absolute rule.

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.

sam: Your point seems to be that he doesn't advocate monkhood for everyone. If you think the only way to approach the ego is by renunciation, then I suggest you do so. But no teacher of enlightenment has said monkhood is a must for everyone. You need to do your homework.

Ryan: Not monk hood, just solitude. A mind that is not inwardly silent is not enlightened. I have yet to read a good philosophical teaching that came from a happily married man. Actually a happily married man is a contradiction of terms, he is only temporarily happy until he loses his vain attachment then he is miserable.

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.

sam: And you assume all egos need is a good spanking as if a good spanking is the only effective way to teach. Do you really believe that? Show me how the Buddha beat everyone up. Show me how the Tao is about beating up people. I'm listening.

Ryan: The buddha's teachings were pretty blunt. He said things like: Life is suffering, nirvana is a state of non-attachment to all sensual things. Taoism was much less effective because it is a bit more poetic and flowery. It was harder to decipher the true meaning for most people.

The Buddha was blunt and so is Tolle. The ego is the problem. Bluntness is not about beating people up, it is about stating your thesis clearly and succintly.

sam: Well, I've invited you to back up your assertion that there is only one effective way to teach. In fact, you seem to be another run-of-the-mill fundamentalist insisting on telling us there is only one true path.

Ryan: Some teachings are more effective than others, this is pretty much irrefutable, and as a philosopher, I’m concerned with the most effective and efficient way of speaking.

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

sam: Really. Well, that wouldn't have helped you, would it? And what makes sexuality dishonest? Is it the same thing that makes eating dishonest, that we enjoy it?

Ryan: We use both to escape reality, sex and food are both held up on a pedestal as holy grails of personal egotistical experiences. As long as the ego strongly values personal experiences, enlightenment is impossible.

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.

sam: Why not let her decide that? Is your judgment really necessary for her spiritual growth?

Ryan: Her judgment isn't worth much though because she is unconscious.

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

sam: Yes, exactly! You are arguing that she has base motives and yet she features a teacher of enlightenment on her program. She obviously isn't as unconscious as you say she is.

Ryan: but she doesn’t understand what he is truly saying or else her show wouldn’t be so superficial. Tolle has adapted a clever technique of sheltering people’s egos by using vague abstractions. He doesn’t speak directly to the ego, he circumvents it. If he spoke directly to their egos, people wouldn't be so entertained by his lectures, they'd be running out the door offended, and in pain.

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?

sam: But I am asking you what the rule is for dealing with that, not for describing it.

Ryan: The rule for dealing with it is to not engage in the activities that cause it, IE: romantic love.

I know that is your rule. Just show me the basis for it in enlightenment teaching.

sam: It doesn't mean he can't present an effective message and influence a great many people while not teaching that everyone must become a monk.

Ryan: If people stay married, and continue living as they are living, his message is a waste of time, he might as well be talking about sports.

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

sam: Sexuality has been used for achieving enlightenment in the past, are you aware of that? Apparently not. So you don't like sex, don't make it everyone else's problem. The Catholic church has done enough in that area already. How has it worked for them?

Ryan: Yes, they have that tradition in India, and it has lead to a lot of group sex orgies, but not too many enlightened sages.

You don't know anything about the teaching but you want to pass judgment on it. Typical fundamentalist.

Although, I’m not saying that one should try to suppress the sexual urge, but having sentimental sex with another person is the highest form of spiritual dishonesty.

You haven't done your homework, Ryan. Here, try this.

People are an extension of yourself, and to leech gratification off another for pleasurable purposes causes confusion, suffering and division. In the West, the Hippies had a similar self-gratification movement, and it was fairly 'groovy', but not all that enlightening.

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.

Moreover, A large percentage of humanities psychological problems can be traced back to a assigning an over importance to the sex urge, and desiring to secure particular sexual experiences with particular people, and there is the cause of all the misery.

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.

brokenhead,

sam: You use racism to make your point? Your racism reflects on you, not Oprah.

brokenhead: I never said Oprah is a racist.

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.

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

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

Why is it that as soon as you make an observation concerning race, the word racism comes up? I was merely making a point.

Yes, and your point was racist.

Don't think for a second she hasn't parlayed the fact that she is black and a minority into the success of Harpo Enterprises. Be careful with the "r" word, samadhi.

Oh please. You make a blalantly racist appeal and expect me to overlook it. Deal with your own racism.

sam: She markets, that's her thing. She also does a hell of a lot of charity as well as providing spiritual perspectives for a mass audience that would otherwise never glimpse them. But you don't like marketing so that's all you see.

brokenhead: How do you know her audience would otherwise never glimpse spiritual perspectives? And I'm not sure which spiritual perspectives you are speaking of. The makeovers? Putting presents under the seats in the studio audience?

Like I said, 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.

Listen, Oprah is a clog. She is not mean-spirited, not that I can see anyway, but does she deserve all the adulation and attention she gets? Why should we even be discussing her?

A clog? 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?

Droves of middle-American housewives spend their hubands' hard-earned money on trinkets with an "O" emblazoned on them. I'm just glad I'm not one of those husbands. But I hear it from them. "Oprah's Book Club." You need to join a club to read a book? You get the feeling that these women would line up to jump off a roof if Oprah said it was okay. It's too many people buying the same book. IMO, of course.

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. Let her deal with the adulation, I'm sure she is well aware of it. That people want to put her on a pedestal isn't her problem. If you think she is misusing her power, then talk about that. But to blame her for her success only shows your own mean-spiritedness.

Dan,

Dan: she's a demented new age cunt with a fixation for wealth and status and the superficiality of physical appearance.

sam: Your prejudice speaks loud and clear.

Dan: True enough, I do have a prejudice for the truth.

sam: Now Dan, I know you want to portray yourself in the most favorable light possible but calling someone "a demented new age cunt" is hardly reflective of a noble demeanor, not to mention right speech.

Dan: What I said is right, so it falls neatly within that category. And Sam, don't throw religious gibberish at me; you know I have no time for that sort of thing.

[sarcasm]Sorry Dan. I'm sure your prejudices can all be justified.[/sarcasm]

sam: As even an ordinary man would have no trouble seeing a shitload of prejudice in your words, surely a sincere, proud and esteemed man of the infinite like yourself might want to reconsider where his prejudice actually lies.

Dan: You really don't see the darkness in Oprah's nature, do you, and I mean aside from the profound feminine flowing whimsy? Take the rose-coloureds off for a bit, Sam, will ya?

Given your opinion of Oprah, I'm sure darkness is all you can see. For the record, I'm not asking for you to like her. I am just pointing out that when you wield the pure evil label, it reveals more about you than about her.

Dan: As for Tolle, anyone who says stuff like: "Feeling will get you closer to the truth of who you are than thinking" isn't worth considering further, despite the fact that they might trot out quality Zen or Taoist teachings, as Tolle certainly does.

sam: People have feelings as well as thoughts. Why pay attention to one and not the other?

Dan: That's not what Tolle said.

sam: Well, it's a place to start, isn't it? You want to give no weight to feelings versus thoughts. Eckhart suggests feelings may be more important than thoughts.

Dan: No, his quote explicitly states the superiority of feelings in that endeavour. Stop playing spin doctor to these guys, Sam. It's unedifying. The way you attempt to shield these people from all and every form of criticism makes you look like a fanatical religious devotee.

I'm not asking for your agreement, just for some objective evaluation. People have feelings, why not look at them? He seems to think they are important. Why do you think he says that? Just saying that he doesn't know anything is not a response that reflects any consideration.

sam: Before you can reach that point, you must at least consider giving them an examination before a curt dismissal.

Dan: What I curtly dismissed was Tolle's statement. Feelings should never be ignored, but feelings are only data - they don't provide understanding.

Understanding is by definition mental. The importance of feelings is about a direct experience as opposed to a mediated one (when your thinking is derived from someone else's pronouncements).

sam: How else could you begin to see whether there is any value there?

Dan: By thinking, how else?

Let's take a for instance. Suppose you feel attracted to someone. Which should take precedence, feeling attraction or thinking "I shouldn't be attracted."

Dan: I don't propose that money, per se, is a problem. What I propose is a problem is when spirituality and its teachings become a business enterprise. Tolle's official website is typical of new age guru enterprise at work.

sam: Okay. My point isn't to convince you of Tolle's bona fides but merely to show that engaging in commerce is not necessarily the unforgiveable sin you make it out to be.

Dan: I think it is when it manifests as an enterprise first and foremost. Tolle's official website is an insult. If it wasn't for devotees of his teachings creating their own websites no poor person could ever access them. At least Adya makes a token gesture at providing free stuff at his website.

After your comment I went to the website. I did notice that no teachings are actually posted under Eckhardt teachings. That's disappointing. There are interviews available. Overall, it does seem to be quite commercial. Given that commercialism is your focus, objecting to his is understandable. The real question for me is, what conclusion can be drawn from it? Yes, he is a product of his culture, so was the Buddha. So are you and so am I. Is it an abuse to market teachings in a mass culture? You haven't made that argument. What is true is that you could get his book in any library if you actually wanted it and didn't want to pay for it. Beyond that, how much you want to invest in CDs and DVDs is up to you. Many people do value accessibility and repeatibility. That's their decision, not yours.

I don't think you have even the foggiest appreciation for the dangers inherent in turning a spiritual crusade into such an enterprise. And frankly, I don't believe you're interesting in knowing about them. But hey, at least Tolle offers: "Save 20% or more on every purchase" for his audio downloads (mostly over $17 a pop).

I'm well aware of spiritual abuse. But you can't make your case by association or innuedo. If there is a misuse of funds or an abuse of trust, don't you think the burden of proof is on you? The fact that a CD costs money is not in itself a indictment of a teacher. I have CDs of different teachers. If I see the value in them but you don't, does that tell you anything about the teacher?

I mean, seriously, Sam. Oprah Winbag is one of the wealthiest women in the world. If she actually believes in this stuff she could fund Tolle's activities entirely, without it putting a dent in her empire that even her accountant would notice.

The ten-week web interactive is free as far as I know. But whether it is or not, the point isn't whether you think she should fund someone's teaching simply out of the goodness of her heart. The belief that someone owes you something based on whatever justification is a thought anchored in dependence. Your awakening doesn't depend on Oprah's generosity, it depends on your own interest and attention. If your main interest is preserving your money, then you will act on that interest and avoid commercialism. But then you can't complain that someone hasn't given you their book for free. Everyone gets to choose their own values, act in accordance with them and reap the results. But if you value a teaching, maybe $10 for a book or CD is cheap compared to the benefit it might bring.

sam: If someone sells the Tao Te Ching in a book store as opposed to a work of fiction, it doesn't mean the seller is engaging in some nefarious activity.

Dan: It does if there's no reason they could also make it available for free over the Internet. When Tolle and Winbag start doing that I'll start listening to your point of view.

This is my point, not yours. The teaching is available for free in other venues. No one is forcing you to spend any money. But if you place a value on ownership, accessibility and repeatibility, then what I'm suggesting is that perhaps you should be willing to pay for it.

sam: Information in our society is a commodity whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Dan: I can acknowledge that whilst also acknowledging the fact that it needn't be.

Then you should live by your values. Having different values does not mandate that others are necessarily misguided. Your knee-jerk condemnation is more of a problem than the price someone puts on their next CD.

sam: Dissemination of information in our society does require mass media and mass media is a commercial enterprise.

Dan: It's also mostly pure evil. Messing with the devil is a dangerous thing to do.

This is ridiculous. There are 300 million people in this country and you think the best way to disseminate information is by town crier. Or that others should just give away their time, effort, expertise, experience and expenses just so you don't have to pay anything. Do you really think our society could function without mass media?

sam: Your objection would be more credible if it were linked to some kind of misuse of funds or abuse of trust.

Dan: You don't get it, do you.

What I don't get is you condemning commercialism per se. Yes, it can be abused. But you cannot condemn someone absent any evidence simply because you dislike commercialism in general. That's called prejudice.

sam: Absent that evidence, you are appealing to our cyncism, i.e. others have abused our trust and thus he must be doing so as well. That really isn't a good argument to make, especially from someone like you who purports to love the truth but who appears otherwise willing to deal in innuedo when it conforms to his prejudice.

Dan: There's is exactly zero "innuendo" in a single one of my posts. There is no reason that Tolle needs to extract a pound of flesh for his teachings. None at all.

Well, without evidence, what else do you have but innuedo? And who said anything about extracting a pound of flesh? If you can't afford $10 for a book, go to a library! Complaining about the price of a CD means you value money above information. That's your choice. If you think the price is excessive or the profits are misused, make the case. Otherwise, deal with the fact that your judgments deal in cynicism and prejudice. No one owes you their latest CD.

And frankly, as I said earlier, when teachers like him begin to speak from their own minds rather than trotting out Zen and Taoist teachings (which anyone at all can do) they begin to speak gibberish, as in this bit from his Q&A page:

Q - How do I teach my children to live in the present moment?
A - Eckhart has said that one of the best ways to teach children is by example...[....]

Yeah, like children have to be taught how to live in the moment. Give me a break.

A lot of people beat their kids because they don't want to teach by example. Teaching by example is about patience. If you are not patient with your children, you aren't going to be a good parent. So where is the bad advice?

But hey, I did like his pet dog and cat in the photo gallery. Wisdom is just oozing out of him in those shots. Let's take a peek at how/why guys like him screw things up; from his "Dear Exchart" page:

I'm not saying you have to like him. I am just pointing out that your condemnation is based on prejudice rather than any objective standard.

Question:

You often use phrases such as "true alignment with life" and "inner alignment with what is". How can we ever be out of alignment with what is? Surely what is is WHAT IS and must include confusion, resistance and non surrender to the present moment.

Answer:
What you say is the truth. As long as that truth is not recognized, however, there is suffering (which of course is part of what is.) As soon as it is recognized, a new dimension arises: awareness, Presence. This is the awakening, the shift, the transcendence of suffering. So, when I say alignment with life I mean conscious alignment. Non-surrender to the present moment is ultimately only non-recognition that you are already one with what is. This is the illusion of separation (which, of course, also has its rightful place within the totality). So we are all on a journey from unconscious to conscious alignment with life. (Please see also A New Earth, page 163/64 for another perspective on this).

Note my bolded emphasis. That one sentence completely stuffed up that answer. It's the sort of rubbish that these guys throw into their answers to make people feel like they're on a path that they aren't on at all. I have no doubt his writings are permeated with this sort of "get our of jail free" card.

I'm slow Dan. I don't understand the "get out of jail free" reference. You'll have to explain why saying "we are all on a journey from unconscious to conscious alignment with life" is so egregious. If enlightenment isn't about being more conscious, what is it about?

By and large, I don't mind what Tolle says, but in the final washup, he says things that totally undermine his value, e.g.

When stillness becomes conscious, the spiritual dimension enters your life and you begin to be guided by an intelligence far greater than the human mind.

Yeah, and? You don't think the universe could possibly contain a greater intelligence than the human mind?

Inspired by Dan's short poem:

'profound feminine flowing whimsy'

I was inspired to write my own...

(*clears throat*)

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.

samadhi wrote: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.

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! 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. "You are the racist." Why are you calling me "the" racist instead of "a" racist? 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.

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

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? 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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

I don't recall blaming anybody for anything.

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.

Maesto,

This is very greedy reductionism Ryan. It boils down a litre of water until only a tiny solid residue remains, then throws the 999ml of distilled water away. It attempts to delineate infinite causal chains by means of only the most gross, cursory analysis of a few arbitrary pieces of information. There are so many factors it doesn't consider, so many more it does not avail itself of and so very many more it cannot know or predict.

The premise of 'hitting the numbers' recognises the inability of even a far more thorough and informed analysis to delineate the kind of causal chains the above attempts. It simply puts it out there to as many as it can, in as digestable a manner as it can, and crosses its fingers.

The affects will be quite minimal, that is my point. Oprah’s main audience is rather lowbrow. It could have some indirect trickle down affects, I agree, but very small, despite the large numbers of sales. Oprah is quite good at inducing tidal waves of blind consumption by her women occult members, but the end result of all that consumption is usually just a loss of finite resources that we’ll never get back.

It's like a Cambridge graduate in linguistics forgetting the importance of learning the alphabet, even though they themselves had to do their ABCs, before they went on to learn the potentially shocking world of words like malignant.

Yes, but what if the majority of the population is incapable of learning their ABCs to begin with. What if they lack the mental hardware to learn all the letters, what then?

Df,

Is that based on your experience? That has not been my experience--and if my experience is wrong, there is no right!

Absolutes and "Always" are always the result of abstraction, never experience. Always!

Human nature functions the same always when it comes to emotional attachment, and you are not exempt from these laws, and if you believe you are then you are in denial.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

Just show me the basis for it in enlightenment teaching.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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