Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Actually breathing is the thing that's gonna kill you. Breathing in oxygen generates oxygen free radicals that damage DNA and cause aging and cancers. I'm not kidding.
As for masturbation. If a man doesn't have sex or masturbate the body will cause spontaneous ejaculation, usually in the sleep. This'll happen to a man whether he's a layperson or a monk, there's even a clause in the extensive Theravadnan rules that say this form of ejaculation is ok.
Masturbation is as natural a bodily function as eating and drinking, I think all mammals indulge in it to some degree.
You can either view it as a desire that needs to be let go of, which is hard as your body will disagree with you. Or you can accept that the physical body requires sexual release as much as it requires sleep, or food. That's just how we're built.
yea. it's like helping the body you're in even to be happy even though you understand that it's not "you." Of course not forgetting about others all the while.
Actually breathing is the thing that's gonna kill you. Breathing in oxygen generates oxygen free radicals that damage DNA and cause aging and cancers. I'm not kidding.
Breathing in oxygen does *not* create free radicals! Breathing in oxygen allows diffusion of O2 molecules across the membrane where they attach themselves to hemoglobin molecules in your blood so you can carry on metabolism. Free radicals are a completely natural product of cellular metabolism, and are nothing new, and do not in themselves cause cancer under normal circumstances. Every living being that breathes oxygen creates them as a normal metabolic process.
It's when they get out of control that you have problems. And the reason they get out of control, for the most part, is due to the garbage we call 'food' that we consume. Hydrogenated fats, etc, etc are the main sources of all the excess free radicals in our bodies.
Under normal circumstances, the metabolically produced free radicals are more than adequately taken care of by the body. But like anything else, when you flood the system with them, the body's natural mechanism for taking care of them is overwhelmed and they can cause problems.
The best way to eliminate excess free radicals is to not create them in the first place. Breathing, deep, shallow, or otherwise, is a necessary thing if you want to continue living. You can try doing without it, but I don't recommend it. By simply eating a healthy, balanced diet rich in whole foods, fresh vegetables, etc, you'll avoid most of the harmful effects of free radicals.
yea. it's like helping the body you're in even to be happy even though you understand that it's not "you."
Well, it is me as much as anything is me. But that's another thread.
Yes, I agree it's helping the body to be happy, in much the same way as keeping it fed, watered and exercised does. The dharma can alter the mind to reduce suffering, but it can't alter biology.
It's when they get out of control that you have problems.
And the reason they get out of control, for the most part, is due to the garbage we call 'food' that we consume. Hydrogenated fats, etc, etc are the main sources of all the excess free radicals in our bodies.
Nope. They are a problem no matter what you eat, it's just that the things you mention here tend to create more. As we get older we accrue damage through oxidative stress, and our cells are damaged no matter how healthy we live. The more damage the more chance of a cell turning cancerous, but even if we never develop cancer the damage takes it's toll. That's why even in ages past when people didn't eat processed food or loads of hydrogenated fats, they still died got old, wrinkly and fragile.
By simply eating a healthy, balanced diet rich in whole foods, fresh vegetables, etc, you'll avoid most of the harmful effects of free radicals.
No, you won't. Free radical damage is random. Granted, the more you expose yourself to the greater chance of developing problems, but saying you can avoid disease related to oxidative stress by eating health foods is untrue.
Personnally, i think, its like the many selfish acts a person can do. If its become an addiction, you need to stop.
Try to step back and look at yourself and question, is what im doing affecting me, mentally, or physically, and altering my possible accomplishments in life.
If the answer is yes, then maybe go for a jog next time instead.
Chrysalid - I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What you're saying is not scientific fact. It's hearsay and popular balderdash. Breathing oxygen is indirectly related to the production of free radicals, but it's pretty well established that you can't live without breathing in oxygen. So you're essentially saying that life is incompatible with life, since by living you're causing your own death from cancer.
There is zero proof that a normal level of free radical production from metabolism causes cancer. That's just silly if you think about it. Every living being that has ever been has been creating free radicals from the moment it took in its first molecule of oxygen. Has every living being that has ever been died from cancer? Don't think so. My grandmother didn't. My old dog Daisee didn't.
Please don't scare people unnecessarily. Cancer is bad enough without old wives' tales about what causes it. If you'd like to have a separate discussion of the scientific facts around this, I'm happy to oblige, but this really isn't the place.
Chrysalid - I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What you're saying is not scientific fact. It's hearsay and popular balderdash.
I'm afraid it is scientific fact, free radicals such as superoxide and hydrogen peroxide are produced as a byproduct of the electron transport chain, the mechanism by which aerobic life generates energy.
Breathing oxygen is indirectly related to the production of free radicals, but it's pretty well established that you can't live without breathing in oxygen.
I'm not saying you can't live without breathing, but oxygen is most certainly directly related to the production of free radicals as most naturally produced free radicals are reactive oxygen species generated during ATP synthesis.
There is zero proof that a normal level of free radical production from metabolism causes cancer. That's just silly if you think about it. Every living being that has ever been has been creating free radicals from the moment it took in its first molecule of oxygen. Has every living being that has ever been died from cancer? Don't think so. My grandmother didn't. My old dog Daisee didn't.
Like I said, free radical damage is a random process. But one of the many diseases it can cause is cancer, if the damage it causes relates to the PCD and cellular proliferation pathways.
Please don't scare people unnecessarily. Cancer is bad enough without old wives' tales about what causes it. If you'd like to have a separate discussion of the scientific facts around this, I'm happy to oblige, but this really isn't the place.
I never intended to scare people, my comment was originally just a bit of throw-away trivia. But I think you'll find that most people are already aware that they are going to age and die. If they don't want to know part of the biological reason, they can dismiss oxidative stress as an old wives tale, otherwise they can just accept it as a fact of life and continue on regardless.
attachment = aversion / desire
master bating i would imagine would fall under the category of attachment due to desire
whether there are scientific principles to back up the Buddhist theory, I don't know.
I guess, if you are not a monk. Master bating is much like any other attachment activity.
It will get you into as much karma trouble as you allow it too.
This is your choice.
I imagine that if you are not a hard core (no pun meant) monk, that having a quick w@nk every now and then probably doesn't do that much damage.
If though, it causes you to be come sex mad and it tempts you to break moral codes which ultimately cause yourself and others to suffer (cheating on people, sleeping with other peoples wives, being dishonest, rape etc), then I would advise that you search for a method of self control that will help you become less damaging to yourself and others.
Otherwise, I hope you all have a good one?...:-)
Where on earth do you guys get all of ths medical stuff from?Are you students/medical people,or are you just naturally curious about this sort of thing?
Maybe you should start a medical thread.Gotta admit don't understand 3/4 of what you are on about,but fascinated all the same.I always thought that when we used to go out on ptotest marches we were free radicals.
Sorry,a quick question.Isn't what we breath, air?Oxygen being only a small part of the make up of air.Or is that just what they put in scuba tanks?
I am not trying to be funny here.One of the subjects I bunked off from at school was school.He he.
Sorry,a quick question.Isn't what we breath, air?Oxygen being only a small part of the make up of air.Or is that just what they put in scuba tanks?
I am not trying to be funny here.One of the subjects I bunked off from at school was school.He he.
No, you're right. Air is about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases.
No one needs to worry about breathing oxygen, I didn't want to scare anyone. Forget I mentioned it.
According to the Bardo thadol, there is no such thing as birth or death. It is all one. It is all empty.
It is all illusion....lol.
Some of this illusion hurts like hell though....
and some peoples illusions are much better than mine...lol
True! I think it's a nice starting point for trying to find the point where birth becomes death, or vice versa. Along the same vein - self and other, or body and mind.
I don't think that it's "wrong" to do this, but I don't see anything skillful about it, especially if porn is involved. That being said, it's something I have a hell of a time giving up. There was a time when I really thought it was a sin, and I couldn't stop. It's just habbit/addiction I guess.
Listen, Christine O'Donnell said masturbation is wrong, so the answer is obvious. Given that everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie or a psychotic delusion, masturbation must be OK! (for those who don't know, Ms. O'Donnell is a tea bag crazy running for Vice President Joe Biden's seat in Congress from Delaware. She's as crazy as a bed bug and is getting trounced in the race, thank Buddha!)
Palzang, when the topic of politics and the ignorant and racist views associated with it comes up, you seem to speak with resentment. At one point I think you said something along the lines of "people who go to the tea parties don't deserve kindness". Why?
stop masturbating its pretty easy.
Its something u always do in the same hours of the day, its something that requires being alone, its something that usually requires having porn.....knowing that u pretty much know when the desire will strike..u can just remove one of the variables and the whole desire collapses, or just hang for a couple of minutes and its gone...
The Taoist would draw the sexual energy up the central meridian up to the upper energy center.
This sort of sexual activity has very strong attachment, yet very powerful.
It's very beneficial to cultivate it, the right way, but may be harmful is doing it wrongly.
For this matter, you might need to consult a qualified guru who knows about tantric sex.
Palzang, when the topic of politics and the ignorant and racist views associated with it comes up, you seem to speak with resentment. At one point I think you said something along the lines of "people who go to the tea parties don't deserve kindness". Why?
Shift -
I haven't read Palzang's comments, but I think I can answer that one at least partly - from my own perspective. The so-called "tea party" folks in the US (who borrow their name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the first revolt against British taxation without representation) are, as a whole, pretty repugnant to those of us who tend to care about the welfare of the less fortunate. Given their way, they would essentially do away with most of the US federal government by eliminating most taxes and shrinking the government to a tiny fraction of its current size (and responsibility). While on the surface that sounds like an admirable goal to some people, the net effect of doing so would be to plunge the poor and dispossessed into even greater poverty. It would deepen the health care crisis immeasurably, and have a million other negative consequences we can't even begin to comprehend yet.
While you can never paint everyone with a broad brush, the fact is that the so-called "tea party" (which isn't really a party at all, by any normal definition - it's more just a mass movement with almost no organization) seems to attract some of the least compassionate, most selfish, and (sorry to say) most whacko people out there. Christine O'Donnell is a prime example. She talks the good talk, but her ideas are so far out in "Lala Land" it's frightening.
Many Americans are so fed up with our moribund political system that they're latching on to anything that sounds remotely "new" or "different", and the tea party *seems* (on the surface) to be both to them. It's a sad fact that the huge majority of Americans don't read, don't analyze, and pretty much believe anything they hear on "shout TV" (Fox primarily) and from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk on the radio. These people spew venom and hate, and above all, disdain for "the government" and anything that smacks of "entitlements" for the poor. It's all old arguments, just slickly repackaged for 2010.
Understanding the subtleties of politics in another country is always difficult, and I've not begun to scratch the surface of this, but I hope this gives you some little understanding of what's happening, and why it ignites such passions among many of us. Those of us who dedicate our energy toward helping those less fortunate can hardly be anything but furious at the current trend in America toward "mine for me, and the rest of you be damned". It's the overriding sentiment among a huge percentage of Americans. And it goes all the way from the AIG's and Merrill Lynches down to the average person. Greed has become the be-all and end-all of peoples' thinking in this country, and the right wing media feeds into it 24/7.
So, I can easily see how it's possible to begin to lose compassion for people like that. I have to try *really* hard not to myself. I try daily (especially with the blood bath election that's coming up on Tuesday) to realize that politics, like everything else, is impermanent, and that 100 years from now nobody is going to remember any of this. But in the meantime, many people are suffering, and if things go the way they're predicted to on Tuesday, many people will suffer more, while the rich get richer and Congress continues to get well paid (and have great health care benefits, btw) and do absolutely nothing but bicker among themselves.
It's probably more than is appropriate here, but this has become one of my favorite quotes recently. It's actually from the TV program "The West Wing" from several years ago, but it rings very true for me...
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
I humbly think that this question gets waay to much attention - don't obsess about masturbation. It's there, we all know it, it doesn't interfere with our lives in any way, it's perfectly harmless.. Just let it be
The worst harm that came from your masturbation MellowViper is that you came to think about it! Now you use (waste) a lot of good energy trying to make up your mind about it.
I find it interesting that at that time, those liberals were called republicans. Funny how things change.
The Congress proposed the Fifteenth Amendment on February 26, 1869. The House vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats supporting the bill and only 3 Republicans voting against it.
I haven't read Palzang's comments, but I think I can answer that one at least partly - from my own perspective. The so-called "tea party" folks in the US (who borrow their name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the first revolt against British taxation without representation) are, as a whole, pretty repugnant to those of us who tend to care about the welfare of the less fortunate. Given their way, they would essentially do away with most of the US federal government by eliminating most taxes and shrinking the government to a tiny fraction of its current size (and responsibility). While on the surface that sounds like an admirable goal to some people, the net effect of doing so would be to plunge the poor and dispossessed into even greater poverty. It would deepen the health care crisis immeasurably, and have a million other negative consequences we can't even begin to comprehend yet.
While you can never paint everyone with a broad brush, the fact is that the so-called "tea party" (which isn't really a party at all, by any normal definition - it's more just a mass movement with almost no organization) seems to attract some of the least compassionate, most selfish, and (sorry to say) most whacko people out there. Christine O'Donnell is a prime example. She talks the good talk, but her ideas are so far out in "Lala Land" it's frightening.
Many Americans are so fed up with our moribund political system that they're latching on to anything that sounds remotely "new" or "different", and the tea party *seems* (on the surface) to be both to them. It's a sad fact that the huge majority of Americans don't read, don't analyze, and pretty much believe anything they hear on "shout TV" (Fox primarily) and from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk on the radio. These people spew venom and hate, and above all, disdain for "the government" and anything that smacks of "entitlements" for the poor. It's all old arguments, just slickly repackaged for 2010.
Understanding the subtleties of politics in another country is always difficult, and I've not begun to scratch the surface of this, but I hope this gives you some little understanding of what's happening, and why it ignites such passions among many of us. Those of us who dedicate our energy toward helping those less fortunate can hardly be anything but furious at the current trend in America toward "mine for me, and the rest of you be damned". It's the overriding sentiment among a huge percentage of Americans. And it goes all the way from the AIG's and Merrill Lynches down to the average person. Greed has become the be-all and end-all of peoples' thinking in this country, and the right wing media feeds into it 24/7.
So, I can easily see how it's possible to begin to lose compassion for people like that. I have to try *really* hard not to myself. I try daily (especially with the blood bath election that's coming up on Tuesday) to realize that politics, like everything else, is impermanent, and that 100 years from now nobody is going to remember any of this. But in the meantime, many people are suffering, and if things go the way they're predicted to on Tuesday, many people will suffer more, while the rich get richer and Congress continues to get well paid (and have great health care benefits, btw) and do absolutely nothing but bicker among themselves.
It's probably more than is appropriate here, but this has become one of my favorite quotes recently. It's actually from the TV program "The West Wing" from several years ago, but it rings very true for me...
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
It's really unfortunate to see this post is in this tread. I thought this would be the last place I'd find something like this. I'm new here, but maybe there should be a political forum for this bs. I just recently found Buddhism (or better yet, it found me) and find this forum very insightful. And thanks to all who participate. But to find this is disappointing to say the least.
I have never been to a Tea Party rally but hold some of the same values... Less govt, less taxes and so on, but I do see myself as more moderate on social issues. Bottom line for me is more govt = less freedom. There's proof of this, just look around the world.
And yes, while you can't paint everyone with the same brush, you try to do this in the same sentence. To call a very large group (millions) of people the least compassionate, most selfish and whackos (I think you forgot to call them plain stupid) just shows your ignorance, intolerance and perhaps even hatred. These are the type of people are the most caring, giving and volunteer there time and money all over world.
Compassion doesn't come from Govt it comes from community.
Just because you quote something from a fictional TV show doesn't make it true.
The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[5] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[6]
Love those racists Democrats...
Since you hijacked a masturbation thread for propaganda purposes I won't be commenting any more on this subject.
Social security (protection for the poor, which makes sure they can get proper medical treatment, find a new job, have a decent life as elderly, help if they're disabled, and get proper education) is for the benefit of all of society - and it has to be funded by taxes, and controlled by a government. Thus the system becomes impartial and nonprofit.
Bottom line for me is more govt = less freedom. There's proof of this, just look around the world.
Yes, look around the world. Look for example at parliamentary democracies which can easily pass legislation. They are recovering the quickest from the world-wide recession.
These are the type of people are the most caring, giving and volunteer there time and money all over world.
Could that be because they don't need to worry about their financial situation since they are among the richest?
Compassion doesn't come from Govt it comes from community.
That's funny. I thought the idea of government was to represent the people. Compassionate people should want a compassionate government to do those things that are just too big for individuals to do.
Just because you quote something from a fictional TV show doesn't make it true.
The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[5] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[6]
It's really unfortunate to see this post is in this tread. I thought this would be the last place I'd find something like this. I'm new here, but maybe there should be a political forum for this bs. I just recently found Buddhism (or better yet, it found me) and find this forum very insightful. And thanks to all who participate. But to find this is disappointing to say the least.
Lol, I love the context of this post.
Why would you be disappointed? Buddhism deals with what's going on inside you, not with politics. This could be an opportunity to examine why someone else's views would cause disappointment to arise within you. Just because this is a Buddhist forum, that doesn't mean everybody here is perfectly apolitical. It's a lesson in imperfection and how you deal with it.
How come a masturbation issue can digress into political debate.
This is strange......
Veliebe it or not it's actually politics, here, which is strange. Politics is "what's in the air," in people's minds.
I don't find Palzang-La's comments about 15 or so posts above irrelevant to the thread topic here. The petulantly dogmatic Christine O'Donnell's 1996 public stance on masturbation is laughable. But, unfortunately, also capable of hate-producing thoughts and actions. Her idea of "God-given sexual desires" begs the question in my mind: Which people have God-given sexual desires and which people are depraved and therefore to be expunged from the earth?
I personally have not found any political discourse in this thread going too far, except for the one vehemently opposed to political discourse distracting us from such a sacred subject as masturbation.
People are demeaning others for their political beliefs. If you want to talk about your ideas and why you believe in them, that is fine, but to talk bad about someone else's political ideas goes against what buddhism's about, imo. I'm a liberal, but I don't believe just because you're a conservative you're evil or have no compassion. Take that back, I know it. People paint with a large brush, and that's one of the problems.
The so-called "tea party" folks in the US (who borrow their name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the first revolt against British taxation without representation) are, as a whole, pretty repugnant to those of us who tend to care about the welfare of the less fortunate.
While you can never paint everyone with a broad brush, the fact is that the so-called "tea party" (which isn't really a party at all, by any normal definition - it's more just a mass movement with almost no organization) seems to attract some of the least compassionate, most selfish, and (sorry to say) most whacko people out there. Christine O'Donnell is a prime example. She talks the good talk, but her ideas are so far out in "Lala Land" it's frightening.
As I say, i'm a liberal and disagree with the tea-partiers. That being said, to call say they don't care about the less fortunate, aren't compassionate, are selfish, and are whackos is demeaning them yes. Unless no person that has ever visited this site has been a conservative, in which case demean away.
I understand he doesn't mean they all are, but it's obviously gonna incite something that should be avoided, ESPECIALLY at a forum like this. If you're a tea party supporter you don't wanna hear that your fellow tea-partiers are those things, just like liberals don't wanna hear some of the things tea partiers say about them. Why would we bring all that hate into a forum like this?
Sorry, sir, but I don't see any hate here. Perhaps you haven't seen my latest question, while you were posting?
Anyhow political parties use slogans and such to make the worse argument seem the stronger usually. Please try to see it as a sport. People really want their brand to win, just as in a sports competition. The thing is, in politics there are poisons that can assail the heart and soul, as it were.
The spiritual person should not allow this poison in, if he or she is to remain sane. However, a hearty condemnation of the other party ignites a portion of the brain where sometimes clear sparks of wisdom or truth emerge and eventually make our lives just a little bit better.
To say they don't care about the less fortunate, aren't compassionate, are selfish, and are whackos seems pretty clearly stirring the pot. Whatever though, if you think it's perfectly kind to call someone uncompassionate, selfish, and a whacko I guess we just have different definitions of kindness. My definition involves not calling other people names for what they believe in, and since apparently i'm the minority there I will be unsubscribing from this thread as negativity does nothing but hinder my progress.
I'm sorry if you see me as negating your feelings, Sir. All I was doing, I thought, was trying to get you to put this election mania into some kind of perspective. It's a bit of a blood-sport, really. People in politics lose all their privacy, often their reputation, everything.... because the stakes are so very high.
YOU cannot control everybody else's behavior, but YOU CAN accept people with their limitations and try to laugh more at human folly, rather than trying to outlaw it. Foolishness just cannot be outlawed.
Politics makes no sense at all. What sane person would spend 28 million dollars for a job that pays 400,000 dollars a year? No strings attached?
OK, so politics is more of a blood-sport than a teams sport. Accept that and realize that people will say things both unkind and untrue —even on a Buddhist forum. The first amendment gives each person the right to speak the Truth as he or she sees it from his or her heart. Actually, that's an understatement. Even bloodless corporate systems that bank their money in Geneva have the right to speak lies with impunity at election time.
Let's not make a mess out of things by not choosing to tune out things over which we have no control.
People certainly are free to do whatever they want. I choose not to associate myself with any form of negativity. I have political beliefs, certainly, stronger beliefs than most. I enjoy discussing them if someone will discuss in a civil manner, but if anyone involved is anything less respectful in any discussion, politics or otherwise, I choose not to involve myself with it. I understand that worse things could happen, that it's the nature of it, that they have the right, whatever, I just choose not to associate with negativity. I thought this was a common buddhist thought. Look at me, i'm still responding. I have a hard time walking away from things.
I have not real ALL of the posts, so forgive me if I repeat a statement already made.
I think the giving up of sexual pleasure in so many religions is so counter-productive. To me, sex is the great paradox: by immersing in complete physicality, e.g. sexual activity, one can release the mind from the present illusions that the body is reality and separate from others.
I always remind myself of this quotation from the Buddha: [FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Common sense tells me that sexual pleasure serves a purpose. Of course, the immediate purpose is that we will want to pursue it and thereby continue our species.
But on a more spiritual level, the physical pleasure can speak for some to the ability to see the body as illusion and the expression of one-ness as reality. To explain, when connecting with my husband in this physical way, I am more present, more mindful of the exact "now" I face than any other time. I am acutely aware during sex that I am nothing and everything at that moment, that I have the ability to see beyond the immediate physical body. This realization helps me during meditation. I fully believe--because I have physically experienced--that I am not separate from anyone or anything. I have no illusions of the body and it's limitations (trust me, after carrying twins full term and approaching 40, I have NO illusions about my body ).
Now I guess masturbation can be a different element because the connecting with another person on that different level isn't a part of maturbating....or is it? Is masturbating facing the limitations of the body? Or is it a means to explore an understand the condition this rebirth has presented us with?
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't part of awakening realizing first the reality of our condition?
I'm confused why even Buddhism would have to strive for its most devout to rid themselves of sexual pleasure, rather than use it as a tool for understanding--or awakening--to the illusion of separateness.
Am I making any sense, or just muddying the waters?
I am such a novice, but I just can't find a common sense argument that all sexual thought and behavior distracts one from practice. I think denying that reality and continually fighting it would be far more disruptive to my practice than fully embracing and experiencing it in a positive, giving, loving form.
[/FONT]
Sexual activity/masturbation has benefits, sure. I don't deny that. I also don't think any of it is immoral. It's just, you can't pursue pleasures of the senses if you want to free yourself from the cycle of rebirth. That doesn't make it wrong or immoral to do it, it's just if you want to break free from the cycle and stop suffering you must stop craving/clinging.
Comments
yea. it's like helping the body you're in even to be happy even though you understand that it's not "you." Of course not forgetting about others all the while.
Breathing in oxygen does *not* create free radicals! Breathing in oxygen allows diffusion of O2 molecules across the membrane where they attach themselves to hemoglobin molecules in your blood so you can carry on metabolism. Free radicals are a completely natural product of cellular metabolism, and are nothing new, and do not in themselves cause cancer under normal circumstances. Every living being that breathes oxygen creates them as a normal metabolic process.
It's when they get out of control that you have problems. And the reason they get out of control, for the most part, is due to the garbage we call 'food' that we consume. Hydrogenated fats, etc, etc are the main sources of all the excess free radicals in our bodies.
Under normal circumstances, the metabolically produced free radicals are more than adequately taken care of by the body. But like anything else, when you flood the system with them, the body's natural mechanism for taking care of them is overwhelmed and they can cause problems.
The best way to eliminate excess free radicals is to not create them in the first place. Breathing, deep, shallow, or otherwise, is a necessary thing if you want to continue living. You can try doing without it, but I don't recommend it. By simply eating a healthy, balanced diet rich in whole foods, fresh vegetables, etc, you'll avoid most of the harmful effects of free radicals.
Mtns (RN)
Yes, I agree it's helping the body to be happy, in much the same way as keeping it fed, watered and exercised does. The dharma can alter the mind to reduce suffering, but it can't alter biology.
Indeed.
Yes, they do, frequently.
Again, true. They leak out of mitochondria.
Nope. They are a problem no matter what you eat, it's just that the things you mention here tend to create more. As we get older we accrue damage through oxidative stress, and our cells are damaged no matter how healthy we live. The more damage the more chance of a cell turning cancerous, but even if we never develop cancer the damage takes it's toll. That's why even in ages past when people didn't eat processed food or loads of hydrogenated fats, they still died got old, wrinkly and fragile.
No, they aren't.
No, you won't. Free radical damage is random. Granted, the more you expose yourself to the greater chance of developing problems, but saying you can avoid disease related to oxidative stress by eating health foods is untrue.
Try to step back and look at yourself and question, is what im doing affecting me, mentally, or physically, and altering my possible accomplishments in life.
If the answer is yes, then maybe go for a jog next time instead.
If the answers is no, then i think its fine.
There is zero proof that a normal level of free radical production from metabolism causes cancer. That's just silly if you think about it. Every living being that has ever been has been creating free radicals from the moment it took in its first molecule of oxygen. Has every living being that has ever been died from cancer? Don't think so. My grandmother didn't. My old dog Daisee didn't.
Please don't scare people unnecessarily. Cancer is bad enough without old wives' tales about what causes it. If you'd like to have a separate discussion of the scientific facts around this, I'm happy to oblige, but this really isn't the place.
Mtns
I'm not saying you can't live without breathing, but oxygen is most certainly directly related to the production of free radicals as most naturally produced free radicals are reactive oxygen species generated during ATP synthesis.
Yes, this is precisely what I am saying. Life isn't a perfect system. Hence the First Noble Truth.
Like I said, free radical damage is a random process. But one of the many diseases it can cause is cancer, if the damage it causes relates to the PCD and cellular proliferation pathways.
I never intended to scare people, my comment was originally just a bit of throw-away trivia. But I think you'll find that most people are already aware that they are going to age and die. If they don't want to know part of the biological reason, they can dismiss oxidative stress as an old wives tale, otherwise they can just accept it as a fact of life and continue on regardless.
Master bate?
master bating i would imagine would fall under the category of attachment due to desire
whether there are scientific principles to back up the Buddhist theory, I don't know.
I guess, if you are not a monk. Master bating is much like any other attachment activity.
It will get you into as much karma trouble as you allow it too.
This is your choice.
I imagine that if you are not a hard core (no pun meant) monk, that having a quick w@nk every now and then probably doesn't do that much damage.
If though, it causes you to be come sex mad and it tempts you to break moral codes which ultimately cause yourself and others to suffer (cheating on people, sleeping with other peoples wives, being dishonest, rape etc), then I would advise that you search for a method of self control that will help you become less damaging to yourself and others.
Otherwise, I hope you all have a good one?...:-)
Well, I better go to the doctor and ask for some med that will stop me breathing as I don't want to die...
http://www.anxietypanic.com/breathing.html
Diaphragmatic breathing:)
Maybe you should start a medical thread.Gotta admit don't understand 3/4 of what you are on about,but fascinated all the same.I always thought that when we used to go out on ptotest marches we were free radicals.
I am not trying to be funny here.One of the subjects I bunked off from at school was school.He he.
No one needs to worry about breathing oxygen, I didn't want to scare anyone. Forget I mentioned it.
If you really want to get philosophical about it, one could correctly say that birth is the cause of death.
Seconded!
Dukkha!
It is all illusion....lol.
Some of this illusion hurts like hell though....
and some peoples illusions are much better than mine...lol
This is similar to the 'cyclical argument' used by Socrates in Plato's dialogue, Phaedo.
Palzang
Its something u always do in the same hours of the day, its something that requires being alone, its something that usually requires having porn.....knowing that u pretty much know when the desire will strike..u can just remove one of the variables and the whole desire collapses, or just hang for a couple of minutes and its gone...
This sort of sexual activity has very strong attachment, yet very powerful.
It's very beneficial to cultivate it, the right way, but may be harmful is doing it wrongly.
For this matter, you might need to consult a qualified guru who knows about tantric sex.
Shift -
I haven't read Palzang's comments, but I think I can answer that one at least partly - from my own perspective. The so-called "tea party" folks in the US (who borrow their name from the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the first revolt against British taxation without representation) are, as a whole, pretty repugnant to those of us who tend to care about the welfare of the less fortunate. Given their way, they would essentially do away with most of the US federal government by eliminating most taxes and shrinking the government to a tiny fraction of its current size (and responsibility). While on the surface that sounds like an admirable goal to some people, the net effect of doing so would be to plunge the poor and dispossessed into even greater poverty. It would deepen the health care crisis immeasurably, and have a million other negative consequences we can't even begin to comprehend yet.
While you can never paint everyone with a broad brush, the fact is that the so-called "tea party" (which isn't really a party at all, by any normal definition - it's more just a mass movement with almost no organization) seems to attract some of the least compassionate, most selfish, and (sorry to say) most whacko people out there. Christine O'Donnell is a prime example. She talks the good talk, but her ideas are so far out in "Lala Land" it's frightening.
Many Americans are so fed up with our moribund political system that they're latching on to anything that sounds remotely "new" or "different", and the tea party *seems* (on the surface) to be both to them. It's a sad fact that the huge majority of Americans don't read, don't analyze, and pretty much believe anything they hear on "shout TV" (Fox primarily) and from Rush Limbaugh and his ilk on the radio. These people spew venom and hate, and above all, disdain for "the government" and anything that smacks of "entitlements" for the poor. It's all old arguments, just slickly repackaged for 2010.
Understanding the subtleties of politics in another country is always difficult, and I've not begun to scratch the surface of this, but I hope this gives you some little understanding of what's happening, and why it ignites such passions among many of us. Those of us who dedicate our energy toward helping those less fortunate can hardly be anything but furious at the current trend in America toward "mine for me, and the rest of you be damned". It's the overriding sentiment among a huge percentage of Americans. And it goes all the way from the AIG's and Merrill Lynches down to the average person. Greed has become the be-all and end-all of peoples' thinking in this country, and the right wing media feeds into it 24/7.
So, I can easily see how it's possible to begin to lose compassion for people like that. I have to try *really* hard not to myself. I try daily (especially with the blood bath election that's coming up on Tuesday) to realize that politics, like everything else, is impermanent, and that 100 years from now nobody is going to remember any of this. But in the meantime, many people are suffering, and if things go the way they're predicted to on Tuesday, many people will suffer more, while the rich get richer and Congress continues to get well paid (and have great health care benefits, btw) and do absolutely nothing but bicker among themselves.
It's probably more than is appropriate here, but this has become one of my favorite quotes recently. It's actually from the TV program "The West Wing" from several years ago, but it rings very true for me...
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
The worst harm that came from your masturbation MellowViper is that you came to think about it! Now you use (waste) a lot of good energy trying to make up your mind about it.
It's really unfortunate to see this post is in this tread. I thought this would be the last place I'd find something like this. I'm new here, but maybe there should be a political forum for this bs. I just recently found Buddhism (or better yet, it found me) and find this forum very insightful. And thanks to all who participate. But to find this is disappointing to say the least.
I have never been to a Tea Party rally but hold some of the same values... Less govt, less taxes and so on, but I do see myself as more moderate on social issues. Bottom line for me is more govt = less freedom. There's proof of this, just look around the world.
And yes, while you can't paint everyone with the same brush, you try to do this in the same sentence. To call a very large group (millions) of people the least compassionate, most selfish and whackos (I think you forgot to call them plain stupid) just shows your ignorance, intolerance and perhaps even hatred. These are the type of people are the most caring, giving and volunteer there time and money all over world.
Compassion doesn't come from Govt it comes from community.
Just because you quote something from a fictional TV show doesn't make it true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[5] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[6]
Love those racists Democrats...
Since you hijacked a masturbation thread for propaganda purposes I won't be commenting any more on this subject.
with metta
Social security (protection for the poor, which makes sure they can get proper medical treatment, find a new job, have a decent life as elderly, help if they're disabled, and get proper education) is for the benefit of all of society - and it has to be funded by taxes, and controlled by a government. Thus the system becomes impartial and nonprofit.
Could that be because they don't need to worry about their financial situation since they are among the richest?
That's funny. I thought the idea of government was to represent the people. Compassionate people should want a compassionate government to do those things that are just too big for individuals to do.
Nor does it make it false.
You mean racists Southerners, don't you?
I can understand that politics can bring out the worst in people, but surely that's no reason to think any less of the individuals concerned.
Lol, I love the context of this post.
Why would you be disappointed? Buddhism deals with what's going on inside you, not with politics. This could be an opportunity to examine why someone else's views would cause disappointment to arise within you. Just because this is a Buddhist forum, that doesn't mean everybody here is perfectly apolitical. It's a lesson in imperfection and how you deal with it.
Absolutely Impious!
This is strange......
Veliebe it or not it's actually politics, here, which is strange. Politics is "what's in the air," in people's minds.
I don't find Palzang-La's comments about 15 or so posts above irrelevant to the thread topic here. The petulantly dogmatic Christine O'Donnell's 1996 public stance on masturbation is laughable. But, unfortunately, also capable of hate-producing thoughts and actions. Her idea of "God-given sexual desires" begs the question in my mind: Which people have God-given sexual desires and which people are depraved and therefore to be expunged from the earth?
I personally have not found any political discourse in this thread going too far, except for the one vehemently opposed to political discourse distracting us from such a sacred subject as masturbation.
I understand he doesn't mean they all are, but it's obviously gonna incite something that should be avoided, ESPECIALLY at a forum like this. If you're a tea party supporter you don't wanna hear that your fellow tea-partiers are those things, just like liberals don't wanna hear some of the things tea partiers say about them. Why would we bring all that hate into a forum like this?
Anyhow political parties use slogans and such to make the worse argument seem the stronger usually. Please try to see it as a sport. People really want their brand to win, just as in a sports competition. The thing is, in politics there are poisons that can assail the heart and soul, as it were.
The spiritual person should not allow this poison in, if he or she is to remain sane. However, a hearty condemnation of the other party ignites a portion of the brain where sometimes clear sparks of wisdom or truth emerge and eventually make our lives just a little bit better.
It is not hate or hate speech. It is battle.
Unfortunately, sometimes the bad guy wins!
YOU cannot control everybody else's behavior, but YOU CAN accept people with their limitations and try to laugh more at human folly, rather than trying to outlaw it. Foolishness just cannot be outlawed.
Politics makes no sense at all. What sane person would spend 28 million dollars for a job that pays 400,000 dollars a year? No strings attached?
OK, so politics is more of a blood-sport than a teams sport. Accept that and realize that people will say things both unkind and untrue —even on a Buddhist forum. The first amendment gives each person the right to speak the Truth as he or she sees it from his or her heart. Actually, that's an understatement. Even bloodless corporate systems that bank their money in Geneva have the right to speak lies with impunity at election time.
Let's not make a mess out of things by not choosing to tune out things over which we have no control.
I think the giving up of sexual pleasure in so many religions is so counter-productive. To me, sex is the great paradox: by immersing in complete physicality, e.g. sexual activity, one can release the mind from the present illusions that the body is reality and separate from others.
I always remind myself of this quotation from the Buddha: [FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Common sense tells me that sexual pleasure serves a purpose. Of course, the immediate purpose is that we will want to pursue it and thereby continue our species.
But on a more spiritual level, the physical pleasure can speak for some to the ability to see the body as illusion and the expression of one-ness as reality. To explain, when connecting with my husband in this physical way, I am more present, more mindful of the exact "now" I face than any other time. I am acutely aware during sex that I am nothing and everything at that moment, that I have the ability to see beyond the immediate physical body. This realization helps me during meditation. I fully believe--because I have physically experienced--that I am not separate from anyone or anything. I have no illusions of the body and it's limitations (trust me, after carrying twins full term and approaching 40, I have NO illusions about my body
Now I guess masturbation can be a different element because the connecting with another person on that different level isn't a part of maturbating....or is it? Is masturbating facing the limitations of the body? Or is it a means to explore an understand the condition this rebirth has presented us with?
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't part of awakening realizing first the reality of our condition?
I'm confused why even Buddhism would have to strive for its most devout to rid themselves of sexual pleasure, rather than use it as a tool for understanding--or awakening--to the illusion of separateness.
Am I making any sense, or just muddying the waters?
I am such a novice, but I just can't find a common sense argument that all sexual thought and behavior distracts one from practice. I think denying that reality and continually fighting it would be far more disruptive to my practice than fully embracing and experiencing it in a positive, giving, loving form.
[/FONT]