Maddie

What do you think motivated humans to create this mental stimuli in the first place?

Perhaps the confusion here is in the words. When I use the word "lust" I am thinking categorically, as a type of craving. Hunger is a type of craving for food, thirst is a type of craving for drink, lust is a type of craving for sex. Now these various forms of craving can have different levels of intensity of course. There can be mild hunger where a snack would be nice but not necessary, whereas there can be unbridled hunger where someone might murder in order to get something to eat. The same could be said for lust. In its mild form someone might think someone attractive is "cute" whereas lust of the intense passionate variety can be quite intense and led to the point where it is "unbridled". I think we have been missing each other in the terms.

I agree that perhaps what humans identify with as being the "self" has evolved over time, but this does not seem to be relevant to the topic of lust. If by eating you mean you mean "mastication" the intake and chewing of food through the mouth for sustenance then yes technically you are correct, but if by "eating" the broader topic of taking in nutrients is the main point then coma patients do indeed "eat" even if it is via artificial means. But again these issues seem to be off toipc.

What about the workplace crush? Maybe somebody at work has a crush on another person at work, but they don't act on it and they try their best to push it out of their mind. Yet the fact that the crush is there is indicative of some form of lust, but the fact that it is not acted upon would suggest that it is bridled. I would even argue that the third precept for lay people that states abstinence from inappropriate sexual expression is another form of bridling lust.

Stating that eating is necessary for survival while sex is not is a scientific fact and not a matter of opinion. By important what do you mean?

That's not how going into heat works for animals LOL. Back when I was a kid and my dad had the unfortunate task of having to babysit his own kids occasionally, not wanting to be put out by the task too much he would watch his HBO movies with us there. These movies had a lot of nudity and sex but as kids not having had lust kick in yet we just thought it was weird. Therefore I would say porn does not give rice to lust, but rather lust gives rise to porn and then pouring simply conditions further lust.

As it relates to personal survival the difference between food and sex is that eating is unavoidable for survival, while sex is not necessary to survive personally.

Is it always unbridled?

The problem with those explanations is that if it's only or mainly about procreation then why don't human beings just go into heat for a brief time like other animals procreate and then forget about it for the rest of the time?

Yes, I think the article made a good point when it showed that many of the questions that the Buddha refused to answer later on when other monks did answer gave rise to these issues that you pointed out that distort the teachings.

https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

I agree. I've tried to understand the Christian view of virtue in suffering, but it does not make any sense to me.

In this regards yes they are the same.

I would imagine that this practice is a hybrid of both approaches.

Also do you know what the Mahayana interpretation of the skandha's are? I'm under the impression the Mahayana interpret them as "things" whereas the Theravada view them as "functions"?

I don't mind waiting but since you did mention the karmic storehouse it did make me remember that when I'm feeling out of sorts due to a karmic release nothing external seems to have any effect what so ever. Herbs the normally help don't, acupuncture has no effect. Basically any method that I normally use to feel better for any other cause has no effect when its a karmic release.

If you don't mind my asking, may I inquire as to why you migrated from Theravada?

Since I have had increasing difficulty with meditation lately I have been pleasantly surprised with the effectiveness of an external TCM approach to cultivation. I've learned much more about it lately, much in the way a blind man's hearing becomes more sensitive out of necessity.

Much is said here about Neidan and for good reason as it is an interesting and important topic, but very little is said about Weidan or external alchemy. I suppose the cliche notions of emperors being killed from mercury poisoning while taking the Cinnabar pill to obtain immortality can be a little off putting, but what about all the other Weidan techniques developed over the centuries with safer herbs and other techniques? I think there is merit in looking into this further. As a TCM herbalist I have had some success with these methods and thought the issue was worthy of discussion.

From studying the Buddhist concept of anata deeply I have become increasingly convinced that the Buddha did not teach no self as is commonly assumed, but rather taught what the self is not, namely it is not any of the five skandhas. When asked if there was a self or no self the Buddha would not answer.

Oh so that is the 7th and 8th consciousness theory in Mahayana? I've heard of it, but like you said being mainly trained Theravadan I am only familiar with 1-6. I think the Theravada say the karmic seeds are carried in the sankhara skandha.

Unfortunately most of what I learned about meditation and theory was from the Theravada perspective so I am unaware of what "alaya" is, but would be fascinated to learn what it is. *edit: on a side note, additionally I've lately been less satisfied with Theravada and more interested in Mahayana but have much less training in Mahayana.

I find Sadguru interesting. I remember watching a video where he explained that temples were actually low level stuff (I think)

I'll have to look at that a little later. For some reason (I don't even know why) I find Hindu concepts more difficult to grasp. Perhaps this explains my tendency towards Buddhism.