safi

People tend to ignore advice that they don't like no matter how correct it is. You see it on this forum all the time. What traditional religions advocate is total dispassion. Now, naturally not all people are ready for this, which is why we should be careful how and where to preach. For instance I wouldn't advocate dispassion to random people on a pop culture forum, but this is a religious forum which focuses mainly on Taoism. The first verse of the Tao Teh Ching, the most important Taoist text says: "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The name is the mother of the ten thousand things. Send your desires away and you will see the mystery. Be filled with desire and you will see only the manifestation. As these two come forth they differ in name. Yet at their source they are the same. This source is called a mystery" And there are other verses which speak against desires, including the one in my signature.

What you say may be true, but you should focus on yourself rather than women. If you constantly think about avoiding them you might develop hatred for them which will only make it worse. Lust and hatred are partners and you can't completely defeat one without defeating the other. Remember that the problem comes from within not from outside. Once you master yourself it won't make a difference even if you were to be surrounded by several scantily clad prostitutes. Aim for that state.

Scientists look outside of themselves for answers rather than within. That's the mistake.

I've seen this post and the other one too. I wasn't going to comment on them so there's no need to delete them. Wouldn't it be better if you restrain yourself instead of posting something and then deleting it? It can confuse readers and some people (such as myself, in this case) will see it before you delete it, so it is futile.

From the same Upanishad: "When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal becomes immortal and here attains Brahman."

Well it could be. I thought you were referring to the plant.

What do you mean?

...

There are some similiarities... Mara is a tempter. There are a lot of similarities between religions.

Yes, if you were to read all these ancient religious texts carefully you would come to the conclusion that what they're really advocating is dispassion.

...

Just to clarify something. This is part of the dialogue and not all of it and I copied it from a book by Sivananda not from the direct source. I searched for the original text and I found one that was worded a little differently but they're both good.

Sure. It's Schopenhauer's not mine. I liked it a lot as well and that's why I'm sharing it.

Here is part of the very interesting dialogue on immortality by Schopenhauer. Deep down this is basically what all traditional religions teach. Student —Look here, I shalln’t give two pence for your immortality unless I’m to remain an individual. Philosopher —Well, perhaps I may be able to satisfy you on this point. Suppose I guarantee you that after death you shall remain an individual but only on condition that you first spend three months of complete unconsciousness. Student —I shall have no objection to that. Philosopher —But, remember, if people are completely unconscious, they take no account of time. So, when you are dead, it’s all the same to you whether three months pass in the world of unconsciousness, or ten thousand years. In one case as in the other, it is simply a matter of believing what is told you, when awake. So far then you can afford to be indifferent whether it is three months or ten thousand years that pass before you recover your individuality. Student —Yes; if it comes to that, I suppose you are right. Philosopher —And if by chance, after those ten thousand years gone by, no one ever thinks of awakening you, I fancy it would be a great misfortune. You would have become quite accustomed to non-existence after so long a spell of it—following upon such a very few years of life. At any rate you may be sure you would be perfectly ignorant of the whole thing. Further, if you knew that the mysterious power which keeps you in your present state of life had never once ceased in those ten thousand years to bring forth other phenomena like yourself, and to endow them with life, it would fully console you. Student —Indeed! So you think that you’re quietly going to do me out of my individuality with all this fine talk. But I’m open to your tricks. I tell you I won’t exist unless I can have my individuality, I’m not going to put off with ‘mysterious powers’, and what you call ‘phenomena’ I can’t do without my individuality, and I won’t give up. Philosopher —You mean, I suppose, that your individuality is such a delightful thing—so splendid, so perfect, and beyond comparison—that you can’t imagine anything better. Aren’t you ready to exchange your present state for one which if we can judge by what is told us, may possibly be superior and more endurable. Student —Don’t you see that my individuality, be it what it may, is my very self? To me it is the most important thing in the world. “For God is God and I am I”. I want to exist, I, I. That’s the main thing. I don’t care about existence which has to be proved to be mine before I can believe it. Philosopher —Think what you’re doing. When you say, I, I, I want to exist, is it not you alone that say this? Everything says it, absolutely everything that has the faintest trace of consciousness. It follows then, that this desire of yours is just the part of you that is not individual—the part that is common to all things without distinction. It is the cry not of the individual, but of existence itself; it is the intrinsic element in everything that exists, nay, it is the cause of anything existing at all. This desire craves for and so is satisfied with nothing less than existence in general—not any definite individual existence. No! that is not its aim. It seems to be so only because this desire will attain consciousness only in the individual, and therefore looks as though it were concerned with nothing but the individual. There lies the illusion, an illusion it is true, in which the individual is held fast, but if he reflects, he can break the fetters and set himself free. It is only indirectly, I say, that the individual has this violent craving for existence. It is the will to live which is the real and direct aspirant—alike and identical in all things. Since then, existence is the free work, nay, the mere reflection of the will; where existence is, there too must be a will; and for the moment, the will finds its satisfaction in existence itself, so far, I mean, as that which never rests, but presses forward eternally, can ever find any satisfaction at all. The will is careless of the individual, the individual is not its business; although I have said, this seems to be the case, because the individual has no direct consciousness of will except in himself. The effect of this is to make the individual careful to maintain his own existence; and if this were not so, there would be no surety of preservation of species. From all this it is clear that individuality is not a form of perfection, but rather of limitation; and so to be freed from it is not loss but gain. Trouble yourself no more about the matter. Once thoroughly recognise what you are, what your existence really is, namely, the universal Will-to-live, and the whole question will seem to you childish and most ridiculous.

Also, to the people who believe that circumcision is somehow beneficial. If it really was beneficial, then how come in other advanced countries in Europe and Asia you don't hear about the benefits? If you ask doctors in most of Europe, they'll tell you that circumcision is not beneficial, but American doctors do. They're parroting what the medical establishment in their country claims. Normally I encourage people to do their own research but in this case, common sense is all that's necessary.