True lust exists, we can’t deny that! Sex is an expression of love (I’m not talking about the instances where someone does it for money, I’m not discussing that presumably unholy thing AT ALL), and no true prophet has ever denied this! My question is: what is the point of asceticism? Why at all does anyone ever need to refrain from having orgasms in any manner, in order to be able to focus on his theological things in general???

They seek pure holiness in their soul and spirit rather than fleshly desire imo it’s a higher form of self-discipline.

Because, like everything in organised religion, it is designed to control people and bend them to the will of whatever made up thing they want to believe.

Are you for the view Carnalism or something between then what’s the benefits and defects it bring to ppl

Beautiful things / places or bad things / places aren't there to control the way you think and act. Religion is a man made construct, purely designed to control the way people think and act. With the top ecehlons in charge of it having all the power, control, wealth and benefits of their station, whilst the lower rungs see people living in fear of doing wrong by the man made rules.

Let’s assume that person P and woman W are normal people like me, and the human A is a true ascetic. Does this fact serve as a proof that neither P nor W has ever found a greater level of holiness in soul and spirit than the level attained by A? Usually the ascetics are at a greater level, but is asceticism necessary? After all, if “Some ascetics are mathematicians”, and “some mathematicians have truly attained the self-realisation of Buddha”, then we cannot conclude that “some ascetics have truly attained the self-realisation of Buddha”. Hope you’ll get my point now!

Exactly! You just spoke my mind in a more fearless and outspoken manner. I can’t find any true connection. God has made us like that! Why would God want us to torment ourselves?

lol too much information thank you I need to be more logic and clear minded I think it’s a kind of love rather than torment just now I thought of the cause of AIDS

You are missing the very pivotal point: is asceticism necessary for reaching the higher levels of holiness in soul and spirit? I THINK THERE'S NO CONNECTION. Do try to carefully read my previous comment once again, hope you'll then get my point.

Taking now on the diversion that you just forked above in this thread: The cause of AIDS is the HIV, AND NOT SEX; it's a different matter that AIDS gets sexually transmitted. "Unprotected Practice", "The Contaminated Ones Not Getting Quarantined", etc are the keywords here. On a similar note, there are diseases that get transmitted via injections' needles and syringe-content. Does this mean injections themselves are the culprit? Of course not. The problem lies with the keywords that I mentioned jus now. If a priest doesn't lie to us when he/she says that he's never experienced an orgasm for so-and-so many long years, he/she has very certainly tormented himself/herself. He/she may try to mislead us by not saying it, you may join him/her to echo his claims, ... WE ARE AS GOD MADE US and we know the truth, despite nice attempts being made by some lofty enthusiasts at pretending to be what they just aren't in actual truth!

What I find interesting is the fact that you consider Persons and Women as two separate things?
Every woman I have ever met is a person.

First of all the above comment serves as a fork in this thread that invites a digression.

FYI, you made some assumptions about what I wrote and why I wrote. It’s not like what you assumed. No I never assumed person as a word that means male human in the manner in which the word woman means female human. Read the sentence that I wrote without making the assumption that P is not a woman. You’ll find meaning everywhere. P can be a man, or a woman, doesn’t matter. W has to be a woman.

Your speculation that I consider persons and women as two mutually exclusive terms was a childish hasty conclusion. Adding to the sorrow, you declared your incorrect speculation to be A FACT.

Initially I had written this:

“Let’s assume that person P is a normal person like me, and the human A is a true ascetic. Does this fact serve as a proof that P has never found a greater level of holiness in soul and spirit than the level attained by A?”

Then I noticed that since I am a male human, ‘a person like me’ may be taken as a phrase which implies that P cannot be a woman. For this reason I explicitly inserted another W, and wrote this:

“Let’s assume that person P and woman W are normal people like me, and the human A is a true ascetic. Does this fact serve as a proof that neither P nor W has ever found a greater level of holiness in soul and spirit than the level attained by A?”

You should be careful when you go on to use “the fact that...” in place of “my speculation that...”. Secondly, your comment in no manner contributes to the thread, it only forks a diversion.

Okay. No worrys?
Been on here long enough that I see examples of such mindset and was only trying to call you out.
Frankly, I'm sick of it.


Yet...you do it again?
Here, let me give you and example:
Let’s assume that PERSON A and PERSON B are normal people like me, and the HUMAN A is a true ascetic.
Says the same thing but without the distinction of characterization.
The FACT that you distinguish PERSON A and WOMAN B is a predilection of gender bias.
Its the very fact that you classify person, woman and human as separate entities that shows bias.
If you are trying to distinguish differences between a select few and the rest of the human race, there are many ways that can be expressed that do not make women feel they are being singled out.
However, if you have the predisposition that women are somehow not part of the human race, that they need to be considered separately, it does explain your need to identify that group separately.
This indicates a predilection to male/female dominance roles in relationships.
Which tells any female that might be interested in you that you might expect her to submit to your will.
If that is what you intend, you did well.

Another attempt to fork a diversion. We’re here discussing asceticism being baseless. Don’t waste our time, especially even after I very lucidly explained how you incorrectly called your speculation as A FACT.

Read my earlier comment once again. If you continue to believe that I assumed person to mean male and not female, you need the help of any learned “person” who is capable of comprehending very simple lucid explanations.

I restate the crux: “since I am a male human, ‘a person like me’ may be taken as a phrase which implies that P cannot be a woman. For this reason I explicitly inserted another W”

Hi there, practitioners of asceticism are often practicing some spiritual discipline to raise Kundalini from the base of the spine to the center of the brain. Kundalini is a hidden energy, as they believe, that when rising will pass to the central canal energizing the chakras, and mix with several components such as crism and sperm and will enhance spiritual development and powers. This is the spiritual marriage which those practitioners are hoping for, and therefore they will sacrifice sex in order to gain spiritutual powers.

Those practices are not biblical and were invented by people who believe they can experience God in many ways.

I recon it's because, if the preists were busily chasing their flock or chasing the tail as it were, they wouldn't be so interested in memorizing the contents of dusty old tomes. They probably all pounded the parson in private anyhow.
they're just people.
Nothing much changes. Old wine , new bottle.

My personal deduction as to why so many people over the eons, have concluded that "asceticism" is a necessary step to achieve "holiness," is fairly simple. Most people, from the time they are very small and young, experience situations where they are trying to accomplish one thing, and find that some more intense experience (pain or pleasure) interrupts them, and carries them off course.

Ironically, asceticism itself, is such a distraction. A person experiences as intense a sensation from denying themselves experiences, as they do from having the experiences themselves; and if they believe that the pain of denial is more "important" or "holy" or "intelligent" than indulgence, then they will experience a sufficient boost to their egos for the self-denial, to turn it into a near religion unto itself.

Perhaps the fact that many indulgences that ascetics reject, tend to be inherently "messy" plays a big part. One rarely has to clean anything up, after a long bout of intellectual pondering, but things like sex and overeating always make a rather mucky mess (if you do it right). Thus again, on a very simple level, it's easy to see why someone might conclude that all things that make messes are "bad," and things that don't, are "good."