A spiritual person is...

[seattlegal]

It looks to me like you are defending apathy or selfishness. Both introvert and extrovert use of the mind is good towards the relationships with others.

LOL, yet you call introvert behaviour "selfish" and "mental masturbation?" That's how you induce apathy in introverts.

It is very difficult for a person to be willfully dishonest to themself. If a person had a failing memory and wrote lies to themselves knowing that they would forget that they were lies, then it is possible.

LOL, I respectfully disagree. {A little introspection might be in order here. }

Honesty or dishonesty with another person is very different.

It might be difficult to love your neighbor as you love yourself if you cannot be honest with oneself, no?

 

[luecy7]

LOL, yet you call introvert behaviour "selfish" and "mental masturbation?" That's how you induce apathy in introverts.

No. I call mind emptying meditation mental masturbation, which is an opposite of an introverted person who would be full of mental activity. An introverted person can apply their mental skills towards relationships. For example a software programmer working in a team and writing software for other people. By your reasoning of inducing apathy, Jesus induced people to hate him.

On this thread it was Radula Sutta: Advice to Rafula that says to renounce the five pleasures of sense that entrance and delight the mind. Then it says to be selfish in the way that you pick friends, and to go find remote lodging to be a person that secludes themselves from the world, to practice renouncing everything about themselves and the world. That it is not introversion. That is isolation and inactivity.

If meditation means to empty your mind, especially in some pursuit of enlightenment, then it is a pursuit of the ignorance, bliss, and pleasure that comes from emptying the mind and not being concerned with anything, or anyone. No stress, nothing to worry about, nothing to think about, just being happy. It is the mental equivalent of performing no work, being lazy. Zoning out. Chilling. Not to say that it can't be bad for rest and relaxation, but that form of meditation is a solo pursuit.

LOL, I respectfully disagree. {A little introspection might be in order here. }

I appreciate and have even used the phrase, but solo is solo. Honesty and dishonesty involve communication. Another person has to trust what you say. Your vehicle, your house, your body, and even your own mind do not exactly trust, nor not trust you. Dishonesty is a method of taking control from a person. Honesty is a method of sharing control with the person. Better to take control of the mind / body / vehicle aggregate, and yet share control with others.

It might be difficult to love your neighbor as you love yourself if you cannot be honest with oneself, no?

No. I appreciate the phrase and reasoning relative to being honest or dishonest with oneself, but it is an entirely different concept than being honest or dishonest with someone else. Then you come along and put it into the form, "I do this to me, so I am going to do this to you." Fail. This looks to me like both a language and concept breakdown.

 

[Lunitik]

If meditation means to empty your mind, especially in some pursuit of enlightenment, then it is a pursuit of the ignorance, bliss, and pleasure that comes from emptying the mind and not being concerned with anything, or anyone. No stress, nothing to worry about, nothing to think about, just being happy. It is the mental equivalent of performing no work, being lazy. Zoning out. Chilling. Not to say that it can't be bad for rest and relaxation, but that form of meditation is a solo pursuit.

You should probably consider why you feel this is bad? Since the dawn of human existence, we have lived a certain way and had those among us that separated from any form of community to concentrate on spiritual growth. Now, in the last barely 100 years, we are teaching societies that this is no longer acceptable in the West. We are becoming less and less natural, and all it is resulting in is hastening our species destruction - and perhaps the destruction of the planet along with us. You might call this progress, but enlightenment is the true progress, for if society stays asleep they will never consider the ramifications of their actions. They will continue to think selfishly, always wishing for their own advancement because they are all that matters to themselves. It is deeply offensive that you then accuse those who pursue spiritual advancement to be the selfish ones. Enlightenment is the exact opposite of selfishness, for it is to consciously give up the self entirely.

 

[seattlegal]

No. I call mind emptying meditation mental masturbation, which is an opposite of an introverted person who would be full of mental activity. An introverted person can apply their mental skills towards relationships. For example a software programmer working in a team and writing software for other people. By your reasoning of inducing apathy, Jesus induced people to hate him.

On this thread it was Radula Sutta: Advice to Rafula that says to renounce the five pleasures of sense that entrance and delight the mind. Then it says to be selfish in the way that you pick friends, and to go find remote lodging to be a person that secludes themselves from the world, to practice renouncing everything about themselves and the world. That it is not introversion. That is isolation and inactivity.

If meditation means to empty your mind, especially in some pursuit of enlightenment, then it is a pursuit of the ignorance, bliss, and pleasure that comes from emptying the mind and not being concerned with anything, or anyone. No stress, nothing to worry about, nothing to think about, just being happy. It is the mental equivalent of performing no work, being lazy. Zoning out. Chilling. Not to say that it can't be bad for rest and relaxation, but that form of meditation is a solo pursuit.

I appreciate and have even used the phrase, but solo is solo. Honesty and dishonesty involve communication. Another person has to trust what you say. Your vehicle, your house, your body, and even your own mind do not exactly trust, nor not trust you. Dishonesty is a method of taking control from a person. Honesty is a method of sharing control with the person. Better to take control of the mind / body / vehicle aggregate, and yet share control with others.

No. I appreciate the phrase and reasoning relative to being honest or dishonest with oneself, but it is an entirely different concept than being honest or dishonest with someone else. Then you come along and put it into the form, "I do this to me, so I am going to do this to you." Fail. This looks to me like both a language and concept breakdown.

LOL. Would you call this meditation "emptying your mind?"
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrn_metta.pdf

 

[luecy7]

LOL. Would you call this meditation "emptying your mind?"

I read some of it. He teaches masturbation. Self gratification. Hey, masturbation takes a little bit of mental work too.

He goes further to say that love is conditional for selfish reasons, where as the form of masturbation that he teaches can only reliably be obtained from yourself. Somehow he is convinced that this pursuit is not selfish, because he wants others to masturbate too and just be happy.

 

[Lunitik]

I read some of it. He teaches masturbation. Self gratification. Hey, masturbation takes a little bit of mental work too.

He goes further to say that love is conditional for selfish reasons, where as the form of masturbation that he teaches can only reliably be obtained from yourself. Somehow he is convinced that this pursuit is not selfish, because he wants others to masturbate too and just be happy.

I don't recall ever having to think during masturbation

Are all conditions not selfish? You are trying to ensure it is a positive deal for yourself... what you fail to comprehend is that what he teaches is the removal of the false self, this can be nothing but selflessness. Certainly, Buddha's entire teaching is about achieving happiness, pure and complete removal of all suffering is happiness.

When there is no false self, selfishness is not a negative. When you see all of existence as yourself, you do for others willingly, it becomes more like bandaging a cut you might have sustained merely to stop it bleeding. You remain in the world solely to increase others happiness when you have attained pure happiness yourself. Selfishness would be leaving this world completely, departing your body permanently to experience the pure bliss infinitely and uninterrupted.

 

[seattlegal]

I read some of it. He teaches masturbation. Self gratification. Hey, masturbation takes a little bit of mental work too.

He goes further to say that love is conditional for selfish reasons, where as the form of masturbation that he teaches can only reliably be obtained from yourself. Somehow he is convinced that this pursuit is not selfish, because he wants others to masturbate too and just be happy.

You sex the mind as a sex organ? Ewww! {Withdraws further from "society." I'm not a sex object.}

 

[wil]

You sex the mind as a sex organ? Ewww! {Withdraws further from "society." I'm not a sex object.}

It appears the proof is in the question!

But you don't think it is? Beauty in the eye of the beholder?

The first stage of digestion is the creation of saliva...a response which is all in the mind.

The first sexual responses are all instigated by the mind...

That {lilt to your typeset and those fancy brackets} when you are indicating 'thinking' are sexy in themselves....

a little off topic, and outta context, but gosh darn fun to stop in and say hi, whilst finding my way back to the barcalounger in the OFC. {guiness and pretzels, if you care to open the door and throw anything at me....and that little number you got on will do just fine}

fodder for another thread I suppose.

 

[seattlegal]

it appears the proof is in the question!

But you don't think it is? Beauty in the eye of the beholder?

The first stage of digestion is the creation of saliva...a response which is all in the mind.

The first sexual responses are all instigated by the mind...

That {lilt to your typeset and those fancy brackets} when you are indicating 'thinking' are sexy in themselves....

A little off topic, and outta context, but gosh darn fun to stop in and say hi, whilst finding my way back to the barcalounger in the ofc. {guiness and pretzels, if you care to open the door and throw anything at me....and that little number you got on will do just fine}

fodder for another thread i suppose.

**splash**

 

[luecy7]

You sex the mind as a sex organ? Ewww! {Withdraws further from "society." I'm not a sex object.}

You call yourself a mother?

 

[seattlegal]

You call yourself a mother?

My son does.

{Pardon my PTSD--err--PMS}

 

[greymare]

My son does.

{Pardon my PTSD--err--PMS}

ROFLMAO

Love the Grey

 

[Saltmeister]

You sex the mind as a sex organ? Ewww! {Withdraws further from "society." I'm not a sex object.}

For a heterosexual man to masturbate, he has to be thinking of a lady and playing with his bits at the same time. Masturbation is a process involving and leading to imaginary coitus.

If meditation is a process that involves such a process, then it is masturbation. Maybe then you could also say that masturbation is a form of meditation, because it can be refreshing and enlightening. It is a very fulfilling experience that is primarily mental but which has links to the physical, particularly in coitus.

But I can't agree that meditation without some mental or physical connection with coitus is masturbation. Masturbation is sexual, not simply mental.

 

[Saltmeister]

My son does.

You can't be a mother without a son. If your son dies and you have no other sons or daughters, you become an ex-mother. Are you an ex-mother?

 

[seattlegal]

You can't be a mother without a son. If your son dies and you have no other sons or daughters, you become an ex-mother. Are you an ex-mother?

LOL, nope. Notice how I wrote, "My son does." Present tense.

 

[luecy7]

You should probably consider why you feel this is bad?

You think I should feel bad for what I stated?

Since the dawn of human existence, we have lived a certain way and had those among us that separated from any form of community to concentrate on spiritual growth. Now, in the last barely 100 years, we are teaching societies that this is no longer acceptable in the West. We are becoming less and less natural, and all it is resulting in is hastening our species destruction - and perhaps the destruction of the planet along with us. You might call this progress, but enlightenment is the true progress, for if society stays asleep they will never consider the ramifications of their actions. They will continue to think selfishly, always wishing for their own advancement because they are all that matters to themselves.

No. In the way that you prefer to think, you have transformed my words towards relationships to a community or society of individuals that you do not really know. You use the words 'we', and 'they' now. Who is the 'we' group and how many individuals of the 'we' group do you really know and permit you to speak for them? That very small fraction of friends or family is where you have relationships. Who is the 'they' group and how many individuals of that group do you really know to speak about? That very small fraction of friends or family are the only ones you can possibly know a little about their spirit, because love, faith, honesty, etc... these are individual qualities that you can choose whether to implement or not.

It is deeply offensive that you then accuse those who pursue spiritual advancement to be the selfish ones. Enlightenment is the exact opposite of selfishness, for it is to consciously give up the self entirely.

Giving up your self to whom: to yourself? Yes, that is selfish. I am sorry the truth hurts. If enlightenment were giving up yourself in relationships, loving others, then you would be on to something.

 

[luecy7]

When there is no false self, selfishness is not a negative.

Interesting that you admit to the selfishness sometimes, and deny it otherwise.

When you see all of existence as yourself, you do for others willingly, it becomes more like bandaging a cut you might have sustained merely to stop it bleeding.

When you see the physical world as yourself... that would be one heck of a delusion. So in your mind you are not your body, and instead you are all of existence. You do not own and take responsibility for your own actions, so instead you pretend to own and take responsibility for all of existence.

You remain in the world solely to increase others happiness when you have attained pure happiness yourself. Selfishness would be leaving this world completely, departing your body permanently to experience the pure bliss infinitely and uninterrupted.

I am afraid there are no words that can show you the hypocrisy and evil that I see in your statements. It takes only one person to play with yourself like a toy. It requires two people, at least, to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

 

[luecy7]

My son does.

{Pardon my PTSD--err--PMS}

LOL. I imagine then you can't really stop somebody from viewing you as a sex object either, just as your son views you as a mother object.

I believe that I have exhausted the subject of spirituality from my viewpoint: It takes only one person to play with oneself like a toy, as in meditation. It requires two people, at least, to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

 

[seattlegal]

I read some of it. He teaches masturbation. Self gratification. Hey, masturbation takes a little bit of mental work too.

He goes further to say that love is conditional for selfish reasons, where as the form of masturbation that he teaches can only reliably be obtained from yourself. Somehow he is convinced that this pursuit is not selfish, because he wants others to masturbate too and just be happy.

LOL. I imagine then you can't really stop somebody from viewing you as a sex object either, just as your son views you as a mother object.

OK, now that we have gotten away from the mind as a sex organ, let's get down to the nitty gritty.

I believe that I have exhausted the subject of spirituality from my viewpoint: It takes only one person to play with oneself like a toy, as in meditation. It requires two people, at least, to do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

What you are calling selfishness and "mental masturbation" is actually responsibility. You need to take responsibility for your actions and transform yourself so you can be helpful to others. You cannot transform others for them, but you can be helpful towards them in this regard by showing them metta, or loving-kindness. In order to to be able to do this effectively, you must work on transforming yourself. (Others may give you strength in this regard, but you must work on yourself.)

If you invalidate this point, you invalidate free-will, and invalidate loving-kindness, or metta, as well. {How can love be real if it is not freely given? If it is not real, then it is just an illusion.}

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lunitik —

When there is no false self, selfishness is not a negative.

I would think when you see no false self, selfishness does not come into the pricture. What others might make of your actions is something else, tho'.

When you see all of existence as yourself, you do for others willingly, it becomes more like bandaging a cut you might have sustained merely to stop it bleeding.

I think the Catholic Tradition would dispute this? I would say seeing the world as self actually robs the world of its own existential dignity — it is real as much as I am real (the world is not an extension of me) — however, if one says 'when you see yourself as part of all existence' then the implication is altered, healthily?

Selfishness would be leaving this world completely, departing your body permanently to experience the pure bliss infinitely and uninterrupted.

We would say that is a misguided notion ... 'the pure bliss infinitely and uninterrupted' cannot be experienced until the world experiences it, that is 'infinite' and 'uninterrupted' implies not you apart from, but you with ...

The individual can experience a provisional bliss, but as the person standing next to you does not, then that bliss can only be relative and conditional, a taste of things to come ...

God bless,

Thomas