Buddhism_A Serious Discussion

[trd]

Two people board a train. The destination is Nirvana.

Their first mistake was in thinking of Nibbana as a destination.

They don't exist. It's a story to illustrate a point. You are trying to be far too clever for your own good.

[rockyysdt]

The awareness of every breath practice will open whole.new areas to you; probably quickly too since you already have some insight and good practice experience.

In , observe the space between the breaths, out , and so on.

Interestingly, the first tetrad of Anapanasiti, involving breath, teaches to chase or follow the breath all the way down to the diaphragm, then from the diaphragm back out through the lungs, windpipe and out through the nostrils.

It was emphasized that special attention/awareness should be placed on the moment between the "in" and the "out" breath at the diaphragm.

This was referred to as the gate.

Edited December 8, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Brucenkhamen, it seems like you are doing an effective practice and I wish you well. I am essentially in agreement with you.

I do not call myself a Buddhist and so terminology is always going to differ from one person to another. That is not so important as long as attention is directed towards simple awareness whether as a sitting practice or while engaged in activity.

[rockyysdt]

It is a mistake to think that awakening produces a particular kind of cloned individual whose every action somehow conforms to an idea of what enlightened behavior might or should be. Here's an example from Nisargadatta Maharaj who took only 3 years to realize. Nisargadatta had a string of shops selling those foul Indian cigarettes called bidis. After he realized, he sold all but one of them to generate enough income to support his family. He continued to smoke like a chimney even during his satsangs and eventually died of throat cancer.

This is from a question and answer session from the book, "I am That".

Q: My body influences me deeply. In more than one way my body is my destiny. My character, my moods, the nature of my reactions, my desires and fears -- inborn or acquired -- they are all based on the body. A little alcohol, some drug or other and all changes. Until the drug wears off I become another man.

M: All this happens because you think yourself to be the body. realise your real self and even drugs will have no power over you.

Q: You smoke?

M: My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them.

Q: You eat meat?

M: I was born among meat-eating people and my children are eating meat. I eat very little -- and make no fuss.

Q: Meat-eating implies killing.

M: Obviously. I make no claims of consistency. You think absolute consistency is possible; prove it by example. Don't preach what you do not practise. Coming back to the idea of having been born. You are stuck with what your parents told you: all about conception, pregnancy and birth, infant, child, youngster, teenager, and so on. Now, divest yourself of the idea that you are the body with the help of the contrary idea that you are not the body. It is also an idea, no doubt; treat it like something to be abandoned when its work is done. The idea that I am not the body gives reality to the body, when in fact, there is no such thing as body, it is but a state of mind. You can have as many bodies and as diverse as you like; just remember steadily what you want and reject the incompatibles.

When I have observed such things, my conditioned and attached mind tell me that these aren't awakened, their actions giving them away.

Maybe I'm wrong. Change is extremely difficult. However my understanding is that change is very possible.

Not only change of that acquired environmentally, but also genetically.

Scientists have recently shown that genetic predisposition can be altered (switch on and off genes), environmentally.

The example quoted above (smoking) appears to tell me that the individual is has attachment to delusion and sloth.

If he was free of delusion then he would be aware of the impact of his profession and conduct both to himself and others.

If he was free of sloth he would make the effort to change.

Edited December 8, 2014 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It is a mistake to think that awakening produces a particular kind of cloned individual whose every action somehow conforms to an idea of what enlightened behavior might or should be. Here's an example from Nisargadatta Maharaj who took only 3 years to realize. Nisargadatta had a string of shops selling those foul Indian cigarettes called bidis. After he realized, he sold all but one of them to generate enough income to support his family. He continued to smoke like a chimney even during his satsangs and eventually died of throat cancer.

This is from a question and answer session from the book, "I am That".

Q: My body influences me deeply. In more than one way my body is my destiny. My character, my moods, the nature of my reactions, my desires and fears -- inborn or acquired -- they are all based on the body. A little alcohol, some drug or other and all changes. Until the drug wears off I become another man.

M: All this happens because you think yourself to be the body. realise your real self and even drugs will have no power over you.

Q: You smoke?

M: My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them.

Q: You eat meat?

M: I was born among meat-eating people and my children are eating meat. I eat very little -- and make no fuss.

Q: Meat-eating implies killing.

M: Obviously. I make no claims of consistency. You think absolute consistency is possible; prove it by example. Don't preach what you do not practise. Coming back to the idea of having been born. You are stuck with what your parents told you: all about conception, pregnancy and birth, infant, child, youngster, teenager, and so on. Now, divest yourself of the idea that you are the body with the help of the contrary idea that you are not the body. It is also an idea, no doubt; treat it like something to be abandoned when its work is done. The idea that I am not the body gives reality to the body, when in fact, there is no such thing as body, it is but a state of mind. You can have as many bodies and as diverse as you like; just remember steadily what you want and reject the incompatibles.

To me, adopting regular Sitting and Mindfulness practice is about the biggest change one can do in ones life.

Practices which are life changing.

Not only life, changing but a way of developing the key to all change.

[Brucenkhamen]

Brucenkhamen, it seems like you are doing an effective practice and I wish you well. I am essentially in agreement with you.

So can we get this thread back on topic then? Not that it warrants 7 pages.

[trd]

It is a mistake to think that awakening produces a particular kind of cloned individual whose every action somehow conforms to an idea of what enlightened behavior might or should be. Here's an example from Nisargadatta Maharaj who took only 3 years to realize. Nisargadatta had a string of shops selling those foul Indian cigarettes called bidis. After he realized, he sold all but one of them to generate enough income to support his family. He continued to smoke like a chimney even during his satsangs and eventually died of throat cancer.

This is from a question and answer session from the book, "I am That".

Q: My body influences me deeply. In more than one way my body is my destiny. My character, my moods, the nature of my reactions, my desires and fears -- inborn or acquired -- they are all based on the body. A little alcohol, some drug or other and all changes. Until the drug wears off I become another man.

M: All this happens because you think yourself to be the body. realise your real self and even drugs will have no power over you.

Q: You smoke?

M: My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them.

Q: You eat meat?

M: I was born among meat-eating people and my children are eating meat. I eat very little -- and make no fuss.

Q: Meat-eating implies killing.

M: Obviously. I make no claims of consistency. You think absolute consistency is possible; prove it by example. Don't preach what you do not practise. Coming back to the idea of having been born. You are stuck with what your parents told you: all about conception, pregnancy and birth, infant, child, youngster, teenager, and so on. Now, divest yourself of the idea that you are the body with the help of the contrary idea that you are not the body. It is also an idea, no doubt; treat it like something to be abandoned when its work is done. The idea that I am not the body gives reality to the body, when in fact, there is no such thing as body, it is but a state of mind. You can have as many bodies and as diverse as you like; just remember steadily what you want and reject the incompatibles.

When I have observed such things, my conditioned and attached mind tell me that these aren't awakened, their actions giving them away.

Maybe I'm wrong. Change is extremely difficult. However my understanding is that change is very possible.

Not only change of that acquired environmentally, but also genetically.

Scientists have recently shown that genetic predisposition can be altered (switch on and off genes), environmentally.

The example quoted above (smoking) appears to tell me that the individual is has attachment to delusion and sloth.

If he was free of delusion then he would be aware of the impact of his profession and conduct both to himself and others.

If he was free of sloth he would make the effort to change.

Rocky, I'm afraid I can't help you to resolve such apparent anomalies. Each realization happens within the context of a particular set of personal traits. I remember the Dalai Lama saying that sometimes his head turned when he saw a beautiful woman. I don't know about him, but there is no doubt in my mind that Nisargadatta was fully realized. Edited December 9, 2014 by trd

[mccw]

The Dalai Lama said "even me; sometime I see a beautiful woman and I must remind myself I sm a monk."

This indicates he has the present moment awareness to catch the sensation/ thought process and cut it before progressing too far.

The other guy sounds like you tdr.

This is not my way certainly.

There are different examples of people who have seen this non self state. Those like Buddha, Guanim , the Dalai Lama perhapse , who teach and speak of love and kindness to aid the existence / aid those beings who are still in the impermanence motion cycling system. They also highly purified themselves. I choose this way. While I am here I like to help people.

Also if fully awakened like the Buddha then one should be awake to all things; not just one insight surely- such total insight would be a consequence and natural from a fully awakened mind/ a totally expanded awareness to see across the entire

[mccw]

Existence

[mccw]

The impermanent cycling everything

[mccw]

Peace , happiness , insight , wisdom

Clearly some get along to a bit of the third stage; think they know it all; and miss out on the wisdom development.

Non pure; immoral and harmful actions, living, livelihood = a lack of wisdom.

This is why it's written and "returners" I guess. Those that awaken to non self but have to live a few more human lives before total liberation - so they need to have a few more goes to develop wisdom and self purification to be free of the Karma cycle.

Such people are unlikely to drop down the level and be easy to open next life. Or be born to be a monk at a young age; like a lama for example.

No one can escape karma from insight alone. Of this I am certain.

Up to you all what to believe of course. This is my view. I just write to add to the points of view for those still walking the path in the world.

According to these guys I too am awakened ; but realise there is much more than the non self insight. I think ego has delusional powers at play here too. As evidenced in several posts.

[trd]

The True Self is the unborn state, it is deathless. Why concern yourself with the death of the physical body when you are dying every second. As each thought appears and disappears, is that not birth and death every moment in the relative. You are already free. Why wait for the death of body. It can be realized now. There is nowhere to go.

This is the issue.

No one unawakened knows what freedom is let alone know how to attain it.

That which is already free, in relation to us, may as well not existence if there is no awareness of it, now, and for countless lifetimes past.

To the unawakened mind/body it is virtually unattainable.

The puzzling thing is that if that which has never been born & will never die, is unconditioned and beyond time, if it already is then what connection does it have with the impermanent & conditioned?

If that which is impermanent and conditioned is so infinitesimally inferior then what does it matter?

If that which is deathless already is then what is to strive for?

What does it matter whether the impermanent and conditioned awakens?

It is impermanent anyway.

To talk of that which is free in relation to "us" makes no sense because there are not two entities, one entity which is free and another entity which is "us". It is a matter of wrong identification. The ego identifies with mind and body as an apparent person. If this is investigated, person disappears leaving the unbounded. To be able to do this there must exist a mix of identities within the mind. There is the primary "I" thought, that sense of being, of existing, of being sentient. But when the mind thinks of something other than "I" and identifies with objects, the sense of "I" is lost as mind identifies with object. This separation causes suffering and is explained in very similar terms in both Buddhism and Vedanta.

There is no definitive answer the mind can understand as to why the absolute chooses to express itself in diversity and forget itself, only to rediscover itself again and become free. In Kashmir shaivism it would be referred to as Shiva and Shakti, the constant interplay between the absolute aspect of Shiva and the manifest expressions of Shakti.

To speculate on this in philosophical terms is not very productive. We've had this conversation many times I know. This is all beyond the capabilities and scope of mind. There is an innate desire for truth and many sages have come and gone who have helped others to realize it. The main thing is practice as I've said many times.

[trd]

The Dalai Lama said "even me; sometime I see a beautiful woman and I must remind myself I sm a monk."

This indicates he has the present moment awareness to catch the sensation/ thought process and cut it before progressing too far.

What are you talking about? Everyone has present moment awareness. How is that different from an ordinary guy looking at a woman and saying, I must remind myself I am married.

Nothing special about that. In both cases the reaction or desire came first followed by thinking. Everyone does that all the time.

Edited December 9, 2014 by trd

[VincentRJ]

Then why have you written that desires can be neutral if it would be silly for anyone to claim he has a neutral desire? I'm trying to cut through this web of confusion here and call a spade a spade.

The word is neutral (at least in the way I'm using it here), it can cover a range experiences from positive desires (wanting to save the world for example) to negative desires (wanting to shag anything that moves for example), please read more carefully.

I have to say for the record, and in the hope that I might help to dispel some confusion here, you seem to have misunderstood the word 'neutral'.

To be neutral means to be unbiased and impartial. Good or bad, desires in general whether positive or negative, cannot possibly be neutral.

A good person is biased towards being good, and a bad person (such as a criminal) is biased towards being bad. Neither the good person or the bad person are neutral. However, it is possible for for both types of people to be neutral, or not, as the case may be, within the context of a particular activity, whether such activity is considered good or bad.

For example, if a person were to embark upon the charitable activity of distributing food to the hungry, and were to give food to everyone who was hungry, without discriminating between male or female, young or elderly, the sick or the healthy, and without discriminating between race, nationality and social status, then we could say that such a person was distributing the food in a neutral and unbiased manner.

However, if there was a shortage of food to hand out, then discrimination and bias might be appropriate. A decision might be made to give food only to mothers with children. Such an act would not be neutral, but it might be the best thing to do in the circumstances.

Again, within the new context of the activity of distributing food only to mothers with children, further 'unneutrality' or bias might take place. For example, a male social worker might tend to give more food to women whom he considers are more attractive.

I have desires for food at least 3 times a day, 7 days a week, I'm yet to suffer from obesity... just a little bit of middle aged spread. But you've brought up a good example of comparing positive desire (for healthy food) versus negative desire (for a sugar fix).

Whereas I've got complete control over my appetite. I find it quite easy to fast for a day or two, and sometimes three. I tend to have only one meal a day, and two meals at most, and I'm not even a monk.

I eat wholesome food, not as a result of any sensual desire for wholesome food, but as a result of an intellectual awareness, understanding and belief that wholesome food is better for me.

[rockyysdt]

The Dalai Lama said "even me; sometime I see a beautiful woman and I must remind myself I sm a monk."

This indicates he has the present moment awareness to catch the sensation/ thought process and cut it before progressing too far.

What are you talking about? Everyone has present moment awareness. How is that different from an ordinary guy looking at a woman and saying, I must remind myself I am married.

Nothing special about that. In both cases the reaction or desire came first followed by thinking. Everyone does that all the time.

If we step back and analyze a mans attraction towards beautiful ladies (or men as the case maybe).

Without this powerful attraction, developed over millennia, our species would not have survived.

In this case, the male is attracted to the female in order for reproduction to begin.

This is what Ven Maha Boowa said upon realization:

When compared with a heart that’s absolutely pure, the world is one big refuse bin, containing different grades of garbage.

When compared to that state of purity, the avijjã that we once held in such awesome regard resembles cow dung; and the nature that was concealed by avijjã appears to be pure gold.

Even a baby knows which is the more precious between cow dung and gold; so we needn’t waste time and proclaim our stupidity by making comparisons.

Asubha meditation is insight into the repulsiveness of the human body. This is the body’s natural condition; by nature, it is filthy and disgusting. Essentially, the whole body is a living, stinking corpse—a breathing cesspool full of fetid waste. Only a paper thin covering of skin makes the whole mess look presentable. We are all being deceived by the outer wrapping, which conceals the fundamental repulsiveness from view. Merely removing the skin reveals the body’s true nature. By comparison to the flesh and internal organs, the skin appears attractive. But examine it more closely. Skin is scaly, creased, and wrinkled; it exudes sweat and grease and offensive odors. We must scrub it daily just to keep it clean. How attractive is that? And the skin is firmly wedded to the underlying flesh, and thus inextricably linked to the loathsome interior. The more deeply wisdom probes, the more repulsive the body appears. From the skin on through to the bones, nothing is the least bit pleasing. The decisive phase of body contemplation has been reached. This is the point where the root-cause of sexual craving is uprooted once and for all.

Why would anyone who knows the truth (Arahantship), turn their head to the attractiveness of a beautiful woman, when they know that in comparison to truth they a staring at something of less value than a pile of cow dung, a putrid festering pile of flesh aging with every moment?

Edited December 9, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

I have to say for the record, and in the hope that I might help to dispel some confusion here, you seem to have misunderstood the word 'neutral'.

To be neutral means to be unbiased and impartial. Good or bad, desires in general whether positive or negative, cannot possibly be neutral.

I don't understand why you're struggling with this, it's really quite simple.

Take another word as a example "emotion", when you hear the word emotion do you automatically assume positive emotion? happiness etc do you automatically assume negative emotion? anger etc. Of course not, no to both, the word emotion does not imply negative emotion and it does not imply positive emotion, it covers a full range emotions from negative to positive.

Therefore the word emotion is neutral just as the word desire is neutral, neither imply a value judgement as a word on it's own.

Kowjai leaw ruyung?

Edited December 9, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

What are you talking about? Everyone has present moment awareness. How is that different from an ordinary guy looking at a woman and saying, I must remind myself I am married.

Nothing special about that. In both cases the reaction or desire came first followed by thinking. Everyone does that all the time.

Everybody has the potential of present moment awareness but most unawakened people squander a lot of it thinking about the past, thinking about the future, craving pleasant, reacting to unpleasant, daydreaming and generally in a state of dullness or avoidance. When all that's going on it's easy to miss a moment such as described above, it doesn't matter who you are.

[trd]

Yes, I agree brucenkhamen. Just to add that if desire causes suffering, then that applies equally to good or positive desires as well as bad or negative desires where craving and attachment affect both. In that sense, you could say they are neutral. One type of craving is not any better than another simply because one is good or bad in a morally accepted sense.

Edited December 9, 2014 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes, I agree brucenkhamen. Just to add that if desire causes suffering, then that applies equally to good or positive desires as well as bad or negative desires where craving and attachment affect both. In that sense, you could say they are neutral. One type of craving is not any better than another simply because one is good or bad in a morally accepted sense.

This is true, we all know the stress involved when we desire to achieve or build something positive, when we desire things to be a certain way for the better and are frustrated by the time it takes or the obstacles in the way.

The degree that this becomes craving dictates the level of stress, doesn't matter if you're trying to achieve something wanted or get rid of something unwanted.

[VincentRJ]

I have to say for the record, and in the hope that I might help to dispel some confusion here, you seem to have misunderstood the word 'neutral'.

To be neutral means to be unbiased and impartial. Good or bad, desires in general whether positive or negative, cannot possibly be neutral.

I don't understand why you're struggling with this, it's really quite simple.

Take another word as a example "emotion", when you hear the word emotion do you automatically assume positive emotion? happiness etc do you automatically assume negative emotion? anger etc. Of course not, no to both, the word emotion does not imply negative emotion and it does not imply positive emotion, it covers a full range emotions from negative to positive.

Therefore the word emotion is neutral just as the word desire is neutral, neither imply a value judgement as a word on it's own.

Kowjai leaw ruyung?

I'm not struggling with it. I understand clearly the meaning of the word 'neutral'. Unfortunately, most people in the world appear not to, hence all the troubles in the world.

To be human is to be biased. All emotions are biased. All creatures on the planet have their own biases which are essentially in favour of their own survival.

It is true that there is a range of emotions that can be experienced, and whatever the emotion is, that we describe or feel, it is either positive, or negative, happy or unhappy, disturbing or calming, angry or joyful and so on. It is never neutral. The word emotion is not a neutral term. Anger, joy and sadness etc, are simply not neutral by any stretch of the imagination.

We get close to being neutral when we successfully apply the scientific method. The success of all scientific theories have depended upon the capacity of scientists to weigh the evidence impartially, in a neutral manner, and that is very difficult, especially when dealing with complex subjects which involve human survival, such as economics and climate change. Economics is, of course, the prime example. It's sometimes referred to as the 'dismal science' for good reason. It's difficult to be neutral when dealing with issues that affect human survival at such a fundamental level.

Scientists are also human (of course ) which is why 'selection bias' can be an ever-present problem. In other words, scientists will often give undue weight to the evidence that supports their pet theory, (or the theory which their employer supports and who pays the wages) and tend to dismiss or undervalue evidence which appears to contradict the theory.

My impression is that the Buddhist state of enlightenment, awakening, or Nirvana, which appears to be a state in which all sensual desire and egotistical motivation has been eliminated (but not all sensory receptivity such as the ability to taste, see, hear, and feel compassion), is a state which would be ideally conducive to the application of the scientific method without the problems of 'selection bias' getting in the way.

Edited December 10, 2014 by VincentRJ

[trd]

What are you talking about? Everyone has present moment awareness. How is that different from an ordinary guy looking at a woman and saying, I must remind myself I am married.

Nothing special about that. In both cases the reaction or desire came first followed by thinking. Everyone does that all the time.

Everybody has the potential of present moment awareness but most unawakened people squander a lot of it thinking about the past, thinking about the future, craving pleasant, reacting to unpleasant, daydreaming and generally in a state of dullness or avoidance. When all that's going on it's easy to miss a moment such as described above, it doesn't matter who you are.

It is important to define what is meant by present moment awareness in the context of spiritual progress. On the one hand, it is impossible to escape the present because that is all there is. The mind is conscious and that consciousness is happening in the now. It is always now. If you are squandering your time thinking of the past or future, these thoughts are also occurring in the present moment. On the other hand, to be "in the awareness" of the present moment points towards a state of peace, free of the anxiety and stress caused by uncontrollable thoughts. To achieve it, all that is required is to cultivate a quiet mind.

But it is much more than that, because, using the example above, you could have two people who glance at a woman and then remind themselves they are married. One could be unawakened and the other could be awakened. What's the difference? One is at peace and the other is not. Don't fall into the trap of judging an individual's state of consciousness by their behavior. This is a big trap and also applies to devotees trying to emulate their gurus.

[Brucenkhamen]

On the other hand, to be "in the awareness" of the present moment points towards a state of peace, free of the anxiety and stress caused by uncontrollable thoughts.

The two go hand in hand, emphasising one without the other would be a mistake.

To achieve it, all that is required is to cultivate a quiet mind.

... like this. Sorry, but a quiet mind is not all that's required, and the Buddha never encouraged such a view. Yes becoming aware of the stillness of the mind that is always there despite the noise and clutter is part of the spiritual landscape, and learning to open up to that stillness it and rest in it is part of the process of awakening. However the Buddha placed much more importance on the wisdom that leads to freedom Dukkha. The two are interlinked don't get me wrong (unless we are talking about very different experiences), but to go on about cultivating a quiet mind like this only serves to "dumb down" the path, a bit like giving importance to the wrapping rather than the gift.

[Brucenkhamen]

The word emotion is not a neutral term.

Rambling aside, ok here's a statement "Yesterday I experienced an emotion".

From that statement can you deduce whether it was a positive emotion or a negative emotion?

[trd]

On the other hand, to be "in the awareness" of the present moment points towards a state of peace, free of the anxiety and stress caused by uncontrollable thoughts.

The two go hand in hand, emphasising one without the other would be a mistake.

To achieve it, all that is required is to cultivate a quiet mind.

... like this. Sorry, but a quiet mind is not all that's required, and the Buddha never encouraged such a view. Yes becoming aware of the stillness of the mind that is always there despite the noise and clutter is part of the spiritual landscape, and learning to open up to that stillness it and rest in it is part of the process of awakening. However the Buddha placed much more importance on the wisdom that leads to freedom Dukkha. The two are interlinked don't get me wrong (unless we are talking about very different experiences), but to go on about cultivating a quiet mind like this only serves to "dumb down" the path, a bit like giving importance to the wrapping rather than the gift.

How do you know what Buddha encouraged or did not encourage? Do you think because you have read a few books and been on a few retreats you can make such pronouncements? Your knowledge and understanding is based on what exactly. Just concepts. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Brucenkhamen]

How do you know what Buddha encouraged or did not encourage? Do you think because you have read a few books and been on a few retreats you can make such pronouncements? Your knowledge and understanding is based on what exactly. Just concepts. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Nothing is certain about what happened 2500 years, that doesn't mean we get to make it all up. We have the Pali Canon which scholars generally agree is a reasonably reliable and consistent record of the events during the Buddhas teaching career, and we have modern teachers whose interpretations and methods can usually be traced back to it. We also have the right and opportunity to test the teachings for ourselves.

I know what I'm talking about because I'm talking about the topic shown above "Thailand Forum → Community Forums → Buddhism" I'm in the right place, what are you talking about?

[trd]

You are absolutely right. I am definitely in the wrong place.

[VincentRJ]

The word emotion is not a neutral term.

Rambling aside, ok here's a statement "Yesterday I experienced an emotion".

From that statement can you deduce whether it was a positive emotion or a negative emotion?

Yes.I would say definitely positive.

We experience emotions continuously throughout our awakened life, and even when we are dreaming, whilst asleep.

If someone were to say, "Yesterday I experienced an emotion", one could reasonably assume that such a person was gradually coming out of a long, comatose period of not feeling anything. To feel anything rather than nothing, in such circumstances, could be considered positive. Okay?

[VincentRJ]

The Dalai Lama said "even me; sometime I see a beautiful woman and I must remind myself I sm a monk."

This indicates he has the present moment awareness to catch the sensation/ thought process and cut it before progressing too far.

What are you talking about? Everyone has present moment awareness. How is that different from an ordinary guy looking at a woman and saying, I must remind myself I am married.

Nothing special about that. In both cases the reaction or desire came first followed by thinking. Everyone does that all the time.

If we step back and analyze a mans attraction towards beautiful ladies (or men as the case maybe).

Without this powerful attraction, developed over millennia, our species would not have survived.

In this case, the male is attracted to the female in order for reproduction to begin.

This is what Ven Maha Boowa said upon realization:

When compared with a heart that’s absolutely pure, the world is one big refuse bin, containing different grades of garbage.

When compared to that state of purity, the avijjã that we once held in such awesome regard resembles cow dung; and the nature that was concealed by avijjã appears to be pure gold.

Even a baby knows which is the more precious between cow dung and gold; so we needn’t waste time and proclaim our stupidity by making comparisons.

Asubha meditation is insight into the repulsiveness of the human body. This is the body’s natural condition; by nature, it is filthy and disgusting. Essentially, the whole body is a living, stinking corpse—a breathing cesspool full of fetid waste. Only a paper thin covering of skin makes the whole mess look presentable. We are all being deceived by the outer wrapping, which conceals the fundamental repulsiveness from view. Merely removing the skin reveals the body’s true nature. By comparison to the flesh and internal organs, the skin appears attractive. But examine it more closely. Skin is scaly, creased, and wrinkled; it exudes sweat and grease and offensive odors. We must scrub it daily just to keep it clean. How attractive is that? And the skin is firmly wedded to the underlying flesh, and thus inextricably linked to the loathsome interior. The more deeply wisdom probes, the more repulsive the body appears. From the skin on through to the bones, nothing is the least bit pleasing. The decisive phase of body contemplation has been reached. This is the point where the root-cause of sexual craving is uprooted once and for all.

Why would anyone who knows the truth (Arahantship), turn their head to the attractiveness of a beautiful woman, when they know that in comparison to truth they a staring at something of less value than a pile of cow dung, a putrid festering pile of flesh aging with every moment?

Rocky,

I like the above quote from Maha Boowa for its bizarre extremity. It's a marvelous description of the precise opposite of what we find attractive and what stimulates our sexual desires and passions.

I can understand how effective the practice of meditating on the disgusting nature of the flesh, as described above, might be in reducing sexual desire, but I wouldn't want to do it.

[Brucenkhamen]

If someone were to say, "Yesterday I experienced an emotion", one could reasonably assume that such a person was gradually coming out of a long, comatose period of not feeling anything. To feel anything rather than nothing, in such circumstances, could be considered positive. Okay?

You assume too much.

[VincentRJ]

If someone were to say, "Yesterday I experienced an emotion", one could reasonably assume that such a person was gradually coming out of a long, comatose period of not feeling anything. To feel anything rather than nothing, in such circumstances, could be considered positive. Okay?

You assume too much.

Not at all. Please re-read what I wrote, "one could reasonably assume". Do you think that assumptions within reason are too much?

Now, if someone were to write, "Yesterday I experienced an emotion so strong that it dwarfed all other emotions", it's true that I might not be able to 'reasonably' deduce whether such an emotion were positive or negative without further description. On the other hand, if I could hear the person say that, and see the expression on the person's face, I might again be able to reasonably deduce whether the emotion was positive or negative. For example, if the person looked very distraught and upset and his voice quivered and was shaky as he reported experiencing the emotion, it would be reasonable to assume that the emotion was negative, and certainly not neutral. Wouldn't you agree?