Aaron

Hello Adept, My opinion is that anything that you might consider the shadow is caused by social indoctrination. It is caused by disturbing the natural course of the mind's evolution in lieu of social constructs. Joseph Campbell goes into this in quite some detail, in particular how our ego develops over time. I also talked about this a bit in the thread on The Nature of Consciousness. Anyways, thanks for your input. Aaron

Hello Manitou, I wanted to respond to your comments. First I hate the term mental masturbation, because it puts a negative connotation on introspection and contemplation, as if thinking somehow is wrong. There is, in my opinion, nothing wrong with contemplation and essentially it is necessary part of reaching enlightenment. It is only by contemplating that one can reach a state where contemplation is no longer necessary. Second, I think the part of the self that you are talking about is the spirit. You might not have read my original post, but I do go into some detail about this concept, that aside from the physical-self and mind-self there is the spirit-self, that part of us that connects us all together. That is what I think you refer to when you talk about the god consciousness. It is the part that is me and you, not a separate part, but instead resides within everything that appears separate. I think from the spirit comes the highest form of virtue and it is by awakening the spirit, becoming aware of it within us, that we can practice high virtue, which is virtue, not for the sake of morality or ideology, but rather because it is meant to be. Anyways, thanks for your input. I enjoyed your take on all this quite a bit. Aaron edit- I posted just after your posted your second response, so I wanted to touch on the idea of, "why?" As I stated in my original post, the question of why, in my opinion is the spirit prodding us. We know the spirit is there on some level, but can't understand it. The spirit is very much the original nature of us all. It is the only part of us that exists before we are born and after we die. I say we, because when we die the spirit goes on, but those parts of us that make us individual ego entities doesn't. Anyways thanks again.

Hello Otis, I think first we better be damn certain we are awake. Second we need to understand the true nature of the ego, which is simply to help us interact with the physical world. Anything else is simply conditioning that is optional. Now keep in mind that certain conditions may seem optional, language for instance, when in fact they aren't. The trick is really not worrying about social and cultural influences so much as ensuring the the true nature of the child is intact, that we do not destroy it for the sake of industry or an interpretation of paradise. Aaron

Hello Lucky, You asked a lot of questions and I'll do my best to answer them. My ego resides within my body. It is made up of the brain cells within my body. My experience of the ego is exactly that, the things I experience as an ego-self. Philosophies only become practices when one practices them. So yes they are practices, but before practice they are philosophies. It doesn't matter. Whether there is light or darkness what resides there is still the same. Our fear of darkness does not stem from our fear of the unknown, but rather being alone. If you doubt this, then just consider the fact that the child who cries in the dark is comforted when their mother holds them close. One does not need a spark of light to feel comfort in the darkness, only the knowledge that they are not alone. Another way of looking at it is that darkness is ignorance and light is knowledge. In that sense then you do need knowledge, but it does not spark a new being, but rather it brings the awareness clearly into sight. The fact of the matter is that this awareness was their from the beginning, the light only brings the illusion that it just arrived. I would love to read the textbooks that sound like these ideologies if you can point me in that direction. Yes I have. I know this because I have experienced it and contemplated it and when contemplation wasn't enough, allowed it to be. This is not conjecture but rather experience. It's the reason I make the distinction between intellectual enlightenment and experiential enlightenment. Sickness in a dream only exists within the ego. When I am asleep I hear a jet plane roaring overhead, but when I awaken I find a fly buzzing at my ear. The Jet plane never existed, only the fly. There is no cure for this, rather you are aware that you were dreaming. I understand that you are using this as a metaphor for self and no-self, the idea that our existence is really just an illusion that is based on the conditioning of our ego. My point is that conditioning does not create an illusionary reality, but rather that the illness comes when one ceases to accept reality because they view it as a sickness. Written in stone is a metaphor for something that cannot be changed. What I mean to say is that everything we have ever experienced is housed within the cells of the brain. When people undergo brain surgery memories are often triggered when the doctor touches a part of the brain. When this occurs the memory is so vivid, it's as if the person is actually there. This is the problem that arises from this notion that self does not exist, it does exist in very real and physical sense. It exists within the cells of the brain. There is more than enough proof to support this that arguing about it seems fruitless. This is also why I say you cannot remove the self. The only way the self is ever removed is when the body dies, even then the memories will remain, even if they are never used, so long as the body does not deteriorate. (Of course that's a topic for a science fiction forum rather than this one.) I'm glad you love my ideas, but I think that what I'm advocating is the furthest thing from speculation (aside from the spirit-self which I cannot prove exists, but can be experienced.) My understanding of self stems from my understanding of reality as it is right at this moment. In my opinion what I'm claiming is not grandiose in the least, at least not by Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist standards, and instead is quite practical and rational. It is an explanation of self that can be supported and understood by nearly anyone that pays attention to what is being shared. You are absolutely right about simplifying it to the moment, but that simplification has it's time and place. This thread isn't about saying, "just accept things as they are," but rather it's about knowing things as they are so that one can truly accept things for what they are. I hope that answers your questions. If you have anymore please feel free to ask. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Cowtao, First, religion is an instrument of conditioning. When you use religion to come to a conclusion, then you have already defined the answer. One who practices a specific philosophy will invariably arrive at a preordained conclusion, if they do not deviate from the philosophy laid out before them. Suffering is not the result of attachment, but the result of the ego not achieving what it desires. You cannot give up certain desires without suffering, eating, drinking, and sleeping come to mind. So even with enlightenment you will be hungry, you will be thirsty, and you will need to sleep. Suffering is never eliminated, only diminished or ignored. You are right, when you become enlightened you do see the nature of things, but if your enlightenment stems from a religious practice, invariably you will perceive the nature of things as that religion dictates them. The highest form of enlightenment transcends religious and philosophical ideology and instead understands the nature of things because it comes from the unadulterated experience of the nature of things as they actually are. Lastly, thoughts arise from the physical form and transcend to the ego form. Thoughts are essentially proof of the existence of self, or at least awareness of self. There is someone acting. The illusion of there being no one thinking, or no-self, stems from dissociating from the ego. This dissociation is further proof of the existence of self, because even in no-self, one cannot escape self. If one ceases to depend on anything to exist, then they will starve to death and truly be no-self. In the end the only way to be free of self is to be free of the physical form that houses the ego-self. I know you will not agree with this and you don't have to. Nothing I've said changes anything, I'm just sharing my ideas. If you like them, fine, if not, that's fine too. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Dagon, I've chosen the question now and I'm far from the end of the road. Even if I do arrive at the end of the road, the answer is the same, regardless of the door that opens to the destination, simply because the destination is the same. If the answer is different, then it's because you didn't arrive at the same destination as I have. Aaron

Hello Cowtao, I've read what you've posted, but I wont have time to get back to it til later. Check here for an edit or if it's a lot later, I'll just write another post. I just wanted you to know that this is my own personal opinion. I'm not discouraging people from following a religious tradition, but rather stating my opinion regarding their shortcomings. Aaron

I think you might be misinterpreting this chapter. It's not advocating any specific definition of self, but rather that one should care as much about others as he does himself. This chapter really doesn't touch on the idea of self or ego, but rather the idea of compassion and stewardship to the world. Aaron

Hello Otis, I agree with you too. The nature of neurosis resides within the ego, it has to, since the ego is our self interacting with the physical world around us. My belief is that neurosis is a result of our ego evolving unnaturally. If our ego was allowed to become what it is supposed to be without the influences of society, conditioning, or whatever you want to call it, then it would be free of these things. My point is that, no matter how hard we try, we cannot undo to the past. Our egos became what they became and even ultimately understanding our original nature doesn't undo that. This is the reason why Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and ultimately all religions and philosophies fail, because they believe by touching that original spark, what we were before we were, that somehow it remove all that we are and it doesn't. The only people that will ever be free of neurosis are those lucky enough to be born and live as they were originally intended. We can achieve that, if we can understand what needs to be done and allow it to be done, at least for our children, but we cannot cure something that is not a disease, but a course of evolution that has had its way. This may seem discouraging, but it shouldn't be. Even though we cannot cure the ego, by understanding our original nature we can begin to act more in line with it. The more we learn to act in line with it, the less those unnatural processes that we have learned can be diminished. The problem is that they can never be completely eliminated, even if one doesn't act upon them. They will arise and we can watch them arise and let them go, but they will always be there, because they exist, not only in our conscious self, but our physical self, the cells within our brain that stores all of our experiences. The ancient Buddhists didn't have the benefit of modern medicine. They had no way of knowing that our memories could not be undone, that our personality and self was written in stone (or brain cells), so for them there was a way to overcome it. There is substantial evidence to support that enlightenment, even at its highest form does not remove suffering, because it does not remove the self. Deconstructing the self only allows us to understand the original nature, not rewrite it. Anyways, I appreciate your comments and I hope life is treating you well. Aaron

Hello Jack, One of the points I'm trying to make (and I understand you probably didn't read my post, it was quite lengthy, so you might have missed it,) is that the ego is very much a part of who we are and that the notion that one must be free of ego or destroy the ego in order to achieve enlightenment is not only silly but absolutely wrong. The other point I'm trying to make is that we are connected to each other, not on one level, but multiple levels. We are connected physically, mentally, and spiritually to each other and it is only when we become aware, not just intellectually, but experientially, that we are truly awakened. I mentioned this in my reply to Steve and I'll repeat it here. There is this recurring theme in many religions that the self is somehow sinful and bad and that only by cleansing it, either through absolution or deconstruction can we make it right. My argument and belief is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the self or this notion of separation and individuality, rather it is necessary and natural for us to understand the world in this way. In fact enlightenment, regardless of who it is, does not destroy the ego or self, because it cannot be destroyed, at least not so long as our bodies breathe and we can think. There has never been an enlightened person that has destroyed their ego, it's malarkey. I use the example of the enlightened head monk who argued for money to go to a baseball game, and the other enlightened monk who, upon receiving an important appointment stood up in front of everyone and exclaimed, "I want a wife." Inconsolable he hung himself shortly after. My point is that I could find you story after story like this. As westerners we are under this mistaken notion that enlightenment somehow removes character defects, when it doesn't, in fact it may exacerbate them. Reaching an awakened state or awareness of the nature of the universe, does not mean we've destroyed that part of us that we call the ego, nor does it mean that we have escaped the mortal bondage of emotions, at best it means we can view these things objectively and rationally examine them. Anyways, that's how I feel about it. I don't mean to disrespect anyone's particular beliefs, but I do feel that this is an important topic that many people ignore or misunderstand, hence the reason for my posting of it. Aaron

Hello Steve F, I think one of the points I was trying to make is exactly the opposite of the one you're trying to make. There is no no-self. The idea that one should not examine what they are or who they are in relation to the universe is absurd to me. One thing that absolutely baffles me is this repeated attempt by religions to denigrate the self in order to push forth an idea of self that seem satisfactory to said religions. The ego or self is not sinful, rather it is very much what it is. There is nothing wrong with someone attempting to explain what the self is. Buddhism and Zen in particular, seem to be founded on this inherent idea that we are somehow wrong and only by deconstructing what we are can we make ourselves right. My question is why? Honestly I have yet to hear a valid reason for why. There's a lot of moralism and agendas involved in the perception of self, because ultimately how one can influence another's view of self will determine the amount of control they have over them. Aaron edit- I should elaborate and explain that I am not responding directly to your argument, but to the basis for which much of your argument is made in regards to Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu philosophy.

Hi Marblehead, I never really thought Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu addressed the issue of self, rather they addressed the issue of self examination. I know that later Taoist philosophers addressed the issue and that as Taoism began to adopt Buddhist concepts the ego became a major focus in Taoism, but prior to that I think self was not a big topic. With that said, if you could point out the passages from the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu that address self, I'd greatly appreciate it. I wouldn't mind getting a Taoist perspective on this topic. Aaron

Hello Ulises, I wanted to thank you for posting this to the forum. I think it was wonderful, and though I might disagree with some of the things said, I think the methods by which Faisal recommends one seek awakening are quite practical. I do believe that the seeker should seek and the teacher should guide with a gentle hand. After all, you can give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish he can eat for a lifetime. Another point I liked was the idea that just because one reaches enlightenment, doesn't mean that they are free of emotions or attachments. This idea has always bothered me, not only because of my own experience in this regard, but also because it seems to view the self, the physical and emotional self, the part we identify as us, as somehow being a bad thing, something that holds us back, when in my opinion, as Faisal also states, it is only through the examination of self that we can truly understand the god spark that is within us. In my own experience the idea of three selves is an illusion, in fact we are only one self. We are body-mind-spirit, there is no separation of the three. It is the belief that the mind (or ego self) causes pain that lends us to this desire to abandon it. The fact is it is every bit as much of us as the other parts and can never be separate. As Faisal states, the spirit seeks individuation. We seek to understand the nature of our separation, not understanding that there is no separation, that the god spark within us is not merely a spark, but a blazing light that resounds within everything in existence. The only way for one to be truly awakened, in my opinion, is to first be rid of this false sense of self, this idea that we are individuals. It is by awakening to the knowledge of the totality and singularity of existence that we finally can reconcile the ego self with the spirit and god self. It is then, when we cease to be passengers of vehicles of flesh, and instead understand that we are not only the flesh but everything else that exists that allows us to understand the true nature of our existence, that even if the breath leaves this body, that I am still alive because you breathe. I am still alive because the trees grow and the rocks sit on the hillside. I am still alive because trillions of miles away suns are born and die, only to be born again. That's the beauty of it all. Anyways, thanks for your post. I am going to start a thread about self if you'd like to stop by. I think it's a very important topic to contemplate and I'd love to hear your own thoughts about it. Although I admire your posts, I think you have some very important things to share and I hope you will. Aaron

Hello Thoth-, I wanted to let you know about some things regarding semen retention. Semen retention can be done by anyone, but it doesn't necessarily mean that simply because you are retaining semen, that you are retaining Qi or energy. Semen retention is performed by learning to control the muscles around the prostate in the urethra. By contracting these muscles during orgasm you force your semen to pass up into the bladder, rather than through the urethra. One thing to keep in mind is that this can cause infection. The debate about whether or not by forcing the semen into the bladder, you keep Qi or Jing, is up to others more experienced in the practice to answer, but I seriously doubt that is what happens, rather the influx of hormones in the body at the point of ejaculation cause a state of euphoria that is heightened and thus gives the practitioner an illusion of energy retention. If you're worried about premature ejaculation, I can possibly help you there. Every man in their lifetime will suffer from premature ejaculation. This is particularly prevalent when you are younger, teens and early twenties, because you require less stimulation to achieve an orgasm. Now if you are suffering from this some simple techniques to help you overcome it can be practiced. The easiest, and the one I recommend, is to stop yourself prior to orgasm. During this time you can continue to have sex, but don't further stimulate yourself, rather stimulate your partner. Once you feel your arousal has diminished start again. Masturbation can help with this too, because it helps to desensitize the penis. If you are suffering from premature ejaculation you might want to practice holding off your orgasm by masturbating and stopping prior to your ejaculation. Now if that doesn't work, also keep in mind that anxiety is one of the main causes of premature ejaculation. The more you worry about it, the better the chance that you'll suffer from it, so my advice, try not to worry. If it happens, then it happens, but don't let the fact that it happens cause you to stop having sex with your partner. Just because you're done, doesn't mean that they were done. People have this odd idea that in order to have satisfying sex both partners need to orgasm at about the same time, but this, more often than not, doesn't happen. In fact if you do have an orgasm, then continue to have sex, you might find you are ready to perform later on, depending on your stamina. Anyways, if you're looking for spiritual progress, keep in mind that Tantra originates from the idea that one of the ways to achieve spiritual enlightenment is through physical pleasure. It is not the easiest way to achieve spiritual enlightenment, nor is it, in my opinion, the most practical, especially since it requires a good deal of discipline and self control to actually perform many of the practices in Tantric Yoga. You may find that following a more traditional practice will offer you better results in that regard. In my own opinion, poor sexual performance is not a valid reason for learning Tantra, but rather a serious desire to learn about the spiritual nature of the physical experience. Even then, one might say that sex isn't intended to be a solely spiritual experience, simply because it is quite deeply founded upon the physical response of the person involved. Anyways, I wish you luck in finding an answer to your question. As an aside, it astounds me how many people seem to be drawn to sexual practices. This is one of the questions that we've talked about in the sexual repression thread? Why do people feel the need to suppress or control their sexual urges? If you want to find out more about the answer you can check that thread out. Aaron

Hello Folks, When I was first starting out in psychology, I had a mentor who studied under Milton H. Erickson. I didn't know it at the time, but many of the forms of hypnosis that he taught me were apparently very similar to Qi practice, or at least I've been told. For instance after several decades of practice I can feel the energy in my body, channel that energy and remove pain with relatively little problem. I can also channel that energy to help me breathe better, stay alert, etc. Now much of this isn't considered Qi practice, but it's commonly used in hypnosis for people suffering from illness. In fact it's been found that hypnosis can dramatically improve one's success rate for surviving certain diseases like cancer. If you are really interested in Western Traditions that can help you with channeling the energy in your body my first suggestion is hypnosis. No it wont help you to move objects with your mind or tell what the winning lottery numbers are, but it will help you to find a center of balance in your life and if needed manage illness and pain. Since then I've modified my own hypnosis practice in a way that it's more akin to meditation. I use no induction techniques, rather I concentrate on what I need to do and do it. This is one of the reasons I'm a firm believer that Qi practices are little more than our ability to consciously tap into the energy that is within and around us. Here's a simple exercise I use to manage pain for instance, in fact I was taught it when I had a toothache. My mentor had me visualize the pain as a small ball of light. I would breathe in and as I breathed in I would visualize myself breathing in positive energy, as I breathed out I would visualize myself breathing out the pain and watching the pain go into a ball of light held within my hands. When the pain was gone I would push the energy away. Those first few times it took a bit of time to be rid of the pain, but after years of practice I can be rid of pain almost immediately. As an aside, my mentor told me about Erickson having polio. Each morning he would do a little self-hypnosis in order to rid himself of the discomfort. If you read up on some of what Erickson describes, much of it is very Eastern minded, in particular the intuitive understanding that he developed about hypnosis. Much of what we know today and practice comes from his own investigation and understanding. You might want to check it out, but then again, that might not be your cup of tea. Good luck regardless. My last piece of advice from someone who traveled the Aliester Crowley, Qabbala circuit at one point, Eastern Traditions are far more authentic in their understanding of the nature of reality. Western Traditions are a bit more flashy, but they lack substance. Just an opinion. Aaron edit- Just wanted to add that I have used hypnosis to help me survive a major life threatening injury. A few years back I was working on a job and a drill came around and hit me in the side of the head. The blow split my skull open to the bone and I severed an artery. I was able to maintain my calm and help to slow the flow of blood by visualizing it going someplace else. I was also able to block out the pain and shock and make it to the hospital in time to receive treatment. No exaggeration here, this really did happen. It took nineteen stitches to sew up the artery, which had been virtually shredded. The doctor didn't believe what happened. He was astounded that I was able to function in the condition I was in.

This was a mispost... Aaron

Hello Seth, You began to touch on another topic I've been thinking about that we really haven't addressed. The social suppression and repression of sexuality. This, in my opinion, is the root of personal suppression and repression of sexuality, because it is from society that we learn to view sex in an unhealthy way. I've talked about this before on other forums and it's a rather touchy subject for many, but I feel it's an important topic. The reason why many religions consider sex or aspects of sex sinful, is simply because it allows them to control the actions of their adherents. In some instances there may be other reasons, for instance Buddha most likely had sexual encounters at a very early age that may have distorted his views about sex, which may have caused him to perceive it as harmful or distracting later on. In Christianity the strict rules regarding sex are holdouts from the Old Testament that were most likely instituted to ensure that the Jews did not become extinct through inter-culture breeding, but continued to be a viable culture. Again, sex and religion, except in rare cases, don't seem to go hand in hand, in fact it's more like one hand slapping the other. Why can't sex and religion exist in harmony? Why does one have to be sinful? Well I think the answer is simply that, as Seth stated earlier, sex can be one of the most enjoyable experiences we have. It is absolutely free and when done in a healthy and natural way, helps to strengthen us spiritually, emotionally, and physically. In essence one of the deepest spiritual experiences we can have is sexual. The various sexual traditions that formed in the east seemed to recognize this, but even they weren't entirely able to divorce the sex and religion taboo. In fact Tantric Buddhism is considered by many to be the reason for the decline of Buddhism in India, the people were not able to accept the implications of sex and religion. This is an interesting point though. After living for literally thousands of years under sexual repression, can we as a society actually come to understand sex as it was originally intended? Can we understand how sex has altered our natural social evolution and caused us to become something else? If one doubts that our natural social evolution has changed, then one only needs to look at the concept of monogamy. Many sociologists and psychologists agree that most men are not capable of being in a sustained monogamous relationship. This institution, in fact, seems contrary to the natural behaviors of a man. Men (and women to a lesser degree), by nature, are not meant to spend their lives with one person, but rather it seems, to procreate with as many people as possible. Now one may think that this doesn't make sense, but from a Darwinian and evolutionary standpoint, it makes absolute sense because those people who have the strongest genetic material will tend to mate the most, increasing the genetic strength of the species as a whole. In fact it's very likely that in the prehistoric past we did not practice monogamy at all, but rather dominant males had several mates. So what was the purpose of monogamy? Well simply put, it ensured that all males were able to find a mate. But even more than that, it helped to transform a migratory hunter gatherer society into an agriculture based culture, by eliminating one of the key social constructs of that early society. In order to ensure that the change was lasting, taboos were placed on the act of sex, in particular certain acts that seemed harmful to society. The most common taboo of course is adultery. Now as modern men in a modern age, we read this and say, how preposterous. We are a monogamous creature. We are meant to find one mate and stay with that mate forever, haven't you heard of true love? Well my answer is simply this, if true love existed and was meant to be experienced by every person, then why are their so many divorces and failed relationships? The fact of the matter is, the Western world is breaking down the sexual taboos of old and slowly but surely our original nature is showing. The idea of monogamy and true love are simply our explanations for why monogamy should work and also to help sell cards during Valentine's Day. Anyways I went a bit too in depth I'm sure, but I think I've made my point. Sexuality in it's natural state is a beautiful thing. When we are allowed to practice it without guilt or repression, then what we find is that we are more in tune with who we are, more centered. However when we repress it, then harmful things can arise. I hope that I didn't go too far off topic. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Balance, I believe myself to be aware, enlightened, whatever you might call it. Most Buddhist say I haven't reached full enlightenment, whatever that is. My point is that I believe I'm somewhat aware and I still see lust as being a natural byproduct of sex. I think the general consensus of most puritan religions is that lust is somehow bad, but I believe, if you apply what you've said to the idea of lust not being emotional, so much as a natural compulsion, then you can still reach enlightenment and feel that compulsion and understand it for what it is. Remember lust is what compels us to procreate, love is what propels us to deepen our emotional relationships. In order to form a lasting relationship with a significant other, both need to be present. Hence the master can still have a wife, love his wife and find his wife attractive, while still understanding the nature of the universe. As an aside, you are a wonderful writer by the way. I really admire your style. Your original post on this thread was quite well expressed. Aaron

Ralis, You're trying to reason with someone who believes you are the one that is unreasonable. Rarely does this work out the way we want it to. Aaron

Hello Balance, Very well said. I agree with everything you've said, except for perhaps the last part. I don't feel that giving up sex is necessary at the highest levels. As I tried to express (and you have) sexuality is not abnormal, or a curse, but rather a natural part of our being. Sexuality is very much a part of our original nature, denying it denies our original nature. When one says it must be given up, I tend to think of original sin, that we were not born perfect and thus must sacrifice to gain that perfection. In my mind we are very much perfect the way we are, sex and all. Aaron

Hello Little1, Perhaps we can adapt psychology to the Eastern practices, but I think what needs to be done is entirely different. I feel a veil needs to be lifted about religion and sexuality. We need to realize that there's nothing wrong with sex or sexuality. When we can understand that, then we will begin to realize the truth about ourselves. For many of us, our sexuality is repressed and dictated by what society and religion dictates. It is only when we are able to appreciate our sexuality that we can really appreciate ourselves and see it for the beautiful thing it is. Aaron edit- Oh yeah, thanks for reading.

Hello Otis, To be honest I wasn't diagnosed until about a year ago. At first I denied having it, mostly out of pride, but after awhile it made sense. You see when one who doesn't know about asperger's hears about it, they have all of these stereotypes that come to mind, some true, but others not. If being diagnosed has done anything, it's answered the question, "why?" Why was I so different? Why did I feel so different from others? Now I know that I am different, but not in a bad way. I just don't think and behave like other people do. In the end autism and asperger's isn't an illness or condition, but rather a way of perceiving the world that others don't necessarily understand. Aaron edited for the sake of brevity.

Hello Jack, I understand what you're saying. When I say celibate traditions, I am not just saying the Catholic Church, but also the Buddhist monasteries. Recently investigations by human rights organizations have reported a high incidence of abuse of boys in Buddhist monasteries in Sri Lanka. These groups do not believe that this abuse is restricted to Sri Lanka, but may be a world wide epidemic. Most victims of sexual abuse in these places will not come forward for fear of losing face. I'm sure if you do a little research you'll find that more often, especially within the Western world, we are finding that just as many deviants are entering Buddhist and other Eastern traditions as they are Christianity. We are also finding that meditation and prayer can only do so much. Sex is a very natural part of the human experience. Denying this experience will more often than not lead to deviant behavior, regardless of how spiritually advanced one is. I understand that there is a belief that one can escape these things, either by reaching a greater state of awareness or prayer, but what is commonly held to be true, in almost every case, is that if one has deviant impulses, they will NEVER be able to be completely rid of them. They may be able to manage them better, but they are never completely gone. This is the commonly held misconception about enlightenment, by the way. That once one reaches enlightenment that they will never have to be angry, sad, or even happy again, that somehow they can control these emotions and dictate which ones are allowed to occur. Well that's not true either. What happens is that you begin to understand the nature of your emotions, so that your existence is not dependent on them. You will still have these emotions, but you can allow them to occur without being invested in them. This means that if you are a deviant you will still have deviant impulses, even if you are enlightened, the problem though, is that unlike anger, sadness, or happiness, allowing these impulses to occur is often harmful to others... this is one of the reasons most traditions discourage the mentally ill from practicing. They know that meditation and practice will not get rid of mental illness. So again, I understand what you are saying, but I think the evidence seems to prove that one cannot be rid of sexual desire, at least not completely. Sexuality is not something one can turn on and off like a switch. In fact sex is like a valve, if one does not release the pent up urges they will begin to suffer emotionally. Yes one may be able to hold it in and deny the effects for a period of time, but I have yet to see someone completely avoid the effects in the long term. This is akin to training a lion. The lion may appear to be tame, but a wise trainer understands that the nature or lion is still there and that merely training it to behave in a certain way, doesn't remove that nature. Aaron

Hello Bodyofflight, I think you're attempt to redirect the blame back on me, rather than examine your own actions and make the right changes to your behavior is just further proof of your spiritual immaturity. Spirituality is about growth and understanding the interconnected nature of all things. When one does this, whether they are Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim, they will inherently understand the need for compassion and tolerance. I see you, whether you believe it or not and I am not making these suggestions to be argumentative, but rather I feel you are walking on a very negative and harmful path that will only lead to pain and suffering. You only know what's on the surface, the currents underneath escape you. Humble yourself, open your mind to what others say and then you can begin to understand. Aaron

Hello Bodyofflight, This is why I can't take you seriously. You show no emotional or spiritual maturity. From examining your actions I know you lack the experience (in spiritual practice) to actually understand what you are talking about. Someone who has reached enlightenment would not behave the way you do, ask the things you do, or treat others the way you do. You are acting in a petty and immature way. The comments you make are more in line with what an adolescent would say, rather than an adult. Behave like an adult and I think people will start to consider what you say seriously. Aaron