Captivates the Mind of a Man

[Pondera]

Sorry pal; those are my opinions based on the sutta. Not gunna delve into literature to prove a point as obvious as the one I’m making. You call it homophobia, but the sutta clearly states eg. men are most attracted to women and eg. women are most attracted to men.

Then apparently you've read the sutta wrong for there's nothing obvious about your statement below. You're not gonna delve into literature simply because there's no literature that could support your astounding claim:

even queer men and women find the opposite sex more attractive despite their choice in life style (which goes against every grain of truth that people believe today regarding gender, choice and sexuality).

You’re right. There isn’t. There is nothing in Buddhism to quote along the lines of - a gay man is still attracted more to women than men despite being gay. BUT - if someone straight up tells you “Men are attracted to women more than any other thing in the world” AND that someone happens to be infallible - what are you going to conclude about the gay person?

You’re going to conclude (in order for the infallible person to remain infallible) that somewhere in the gay man’s psyche there is an underlying tendency to prefer women over men - despite being gay.

NOW!!!! I don’t even buy that argument - SO!!! Is the source really infallible???

Jeeze It’s not rocket science, man.

[santa100]

BUT - if someone straight up tells you “Men are attracted to women more than any other thing in the world” AND that someone happens to be infallible - what are you going to conclude about the gay person?

You’re going to conclude (in order for the infallible person to remain infallible) that somewhere in the gay man’s psyche there is an underlying tendency to prefer women over men - despite being gay.

NOW!!!! I don’t even buy that argument - SO!!! Is the source really infallible???

No, you've just contradicted yourself thru your answer to to Ven. Dhammanando that: "You would NOT conclude that wrongful sexual relations are impossible for a woman - even if such matters ARE NOT expounded upon by the Buddha". A man like you who's capable of inferring/deducing the message of the 3rd precept should automatically be able to do the exact same thing for AN 1.1-10.

[Nicolas]

I think the sutta is implicitly referring to the heterosexual majority. I imagine that homosexual attraction is of the same caliber as heterosexual attraction and the Buddha would have said similar things about it. The point is that the most enticing object of sensual pleasure for all five strings of sensuality comes from a person of the gender one has attraction to. It was probably not mentioned by the Buddha because it is more of an exception (homosexuality being relatively rare), far from the general, most common and “default” case of heterosexuality.

[Pondera]

BUT - if someone straight up tells you “Men are attracted to women more than any other thing in the world” AND that someone happens to be infallible - what are you going to conclude about the gay person?

You’re going to conclude (in order for the infallible person to remain infallible) that somewhere in the gay man’s psyche there is an underlying tendency to prefer women over men - despite being gay.

NOW!!!! I don’t even buy that argument - SO!!! Is the source really infallible???

No, you've just contradicted yourself thru your answer to to Ven. Dhammanando that: "You would NOT conclude that wrongful sexual relations are impossible for a woman - even if such matters ARE NOT expounded upon by the Buddha". A man like you who's capable of inferring/deducing the message of the 3rd precept should automatically be able to do the exact same thing for AN 1.1-10. If not, then seriously, maybe it's time for a MRI scan.

1. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of man as that of woman.
The form of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the first

Another man may captivate the mind of a man - a beast - a child - a dead person. All of that I grant you. But the Buddha says he does not know of a form that captivates the mind of a man as that of a woman. So, I give credence to every other persuasion and fetish - but the form of a woman captivates the mind of a man indeed - above all else.

You say that any other persuasion or fetish can equally captivate the mind of a man or woman or whatever. THIS is the contradiction here. The fact that I don’t need a precept to realize that a woman can commit sexual transgressions does not contradict the fact that I am correctly reading this sutta in a literal sense - whereas as you are getting your answers from ... outer space.

[Pondera]

I think the sutta is implicitly referring to the heterosexual majority. I imagine that homosexual attraction is of the same caliber as heterosexual attraction and the Buddha would have said similar things about it. The point is that the most enticing object of sensual pleasure for all five strings of sensuality comes from a person of the gender one has attraction to. It was probably not mentioned by the Buddha because it is more of an exception (homosexuality being relatively rare), far from the general, most common and “default” case of heterosexuality.

Thank you. One question. Did you infer that from the sutta or did you form this assertion based on your own opinions?

[Pondera]

santa100: If you’re right, then the Buddha must be wrong.

because when the Buddha says, “1. Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of man as that of woman.
The form of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man. This is the first.”

- that is a mutually exclusive assertion. He asserts the attractiveness of a female to a male at the exclusion of all other things - living; dead; or anime.

This is contained in the expression “I do not know of anything ... etc”. That is also exactly why the inference you think is so obvious is in fact so dubious.

[santa100]

You say that any other persuasion or fetish can equally captivate the mind of a man or woman or whatever. THIS is the contradiction here. The fact that I don’t need a precept to realize that a woman can commit sexual transgressions does not contradict the fact that I am correctly reading this sutta in a literal sense - whereas as you are getting your answers from ... outer space.

Do provide the exact quote where I said "other persuation or fetish can equally captivate the mind of a man or woman?" I'm not getting my answers from outer space but I start to believe you are from outer space. Afterall, it's mind-boggling that after 35 posts, you still fail to accept that if the message from AN 1.1-10 says the most enticing object of sensual pleasure to a man is a woman, and a woman to a man, then the exceedingly simple and natural inferrence/deduction is that:
1. the man or woman mentioned is heterosexual; and hence it naturally follows that:
2. the most enticing object of sensual pleasure to a gay man is another man, a bi-man is either sexes, a fetish is an object, a pedophile is a child, so on and so forth to infinity. Really, it's mind-boggling how you, a 36 year-old man, fail to see that.

[Nicolas]

Pondera,

Opinion based on observation of the world, others’ experience, and interpretation of the sutta.

Is it more likely that homosexuals are actually secretly more heterosexual, or that homosexuals have just as much and just as intense desire as heterosexuals?
Do you know anyone who is homosexual? Their attraction to people of the same gender is just as strong as attraction heterosexuals have for the opposite gender.

[Pondera]

You say that any other persuasion or fetish can equally captivate the mind of a man or woman or whatever. THIS is the contradiction here. The fact that I don’t need a precept to realize that a woman can commit sexual transgressions does not contradict the fact that I am correctly reading this sutta in a literal sense - whereas as you are getting your answers from ... outer space.

Do provide the exact quote where I said "other persuation or fetish can equally captivate the mind of a man or woman?" I'm not getting my answers from outer space but I start to believe you are from outer space. Afterall, it's mind-boggling that after 35 posts, you still fail to accept that if the message from AN 1.1-10 says the most enticing object of sensual pleasure to a man is a woman, and a woman to a man, then the exceedingly simple and natural inferrence/deduction is that:
1. the man or woman mentioned is heterosexual; and hence it naturally follows that:
2. the most enticing object of sensual pleasure to a gay man is another man, a bi-man is either sexes, a fetish is an object, a pedophile is a child, so on and so forth to infinity. Really, it's mind-boggling how you, a 36 year-old man, fail to see that.

What I fail to see is whether or not God is a lesbian.

So, you’re saying the Buddha didn’t want to waste time on categorizing every type of male or female.

Good. Good. Very good.. Kay. Here’s a question. How the fuc do you know what type of male or female you are if there are an infinite number of types?

[Pondera]

Pondera,

Opinion based on observation of the world, others’ experience, and interpretation of the sutta.

Is it more likely that homosexuals are actually secretly more heterosexual, or that homosexuals have just as much and just as intense desire as heterosexuals?
Do you know anyone who is homosexual? Their attraction to people of the same gender is just as strong as attraction heterosexuals have for the opposite gender.

Yes. I know this. People are born heterosexual, homosexual, pedophile, beastiality inclinded, Anime inclined, etc.

[santa100]

What I fail to see is whether or not God is a lesbian.

So, you’re saying the Buddha didn’t want to waste time on categorizing every type of male or female.

Good. Good. Very good.. Kay. Here’s a question. How the fuc do you know what type of male or female you are if there are an infinite number of types?

Actually I take it back, you weren't from outer space. You've just sprang up from some hellhole. There's still the smell of sulfur from your hissing.

[Pondera]

What I fail to see is whether or not God is a lesbian.

So, you’re saying the Buddha didn’t want to waste time on categorizing every type of male or female.

Good. Good. Very good.. Kay. Here’s a question. How the fuc do you know what type of male or female you are if there are an infinite number of types?

Actually I take it back, you weren't from outer space. You've just sprang up from some hellhole. There's still the smell of sulfur from your hissing.

I’ll be back. Hisssssss

[santa100]

What I fail to see is whether or not God is a lesbian.

So, you’re saying the Buddha didn’t want to waste time on categorizing every type of male or female.

Good. Good. Very good.. Kay. Here’s a question. How the fuc do you know what type of male or female you are if there are an infinite number of types?

Actually I take it back, you weren't from outer space. You've just sprang up from some hellhole. There's still the smell of sulfur from your hissing.

I’ll be back. Hisssssss

Any time. I'll be here. Have fun with a good burn down there.

[Pondera]

[Pondera]

Relevant quote to end out the topic

“There are some brahmans & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from disease.’ I approached them and asked them, ‘Is it true that you have a doctrine & view like this: “After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from disease"?’ When asked this, they replied, ‘Yes.’ So I asked them, ‘But do you dwell having known or seen an exclusively happy world?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But have you ever been aware of a self exclusively happy for a day or a night, or for half a day or half a night?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But do you know that “This is the path, this is the practice for the realization of an exclusively happy world"?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But have you heard the voices of devas reborn in an exclusively happy world, saying, “Practice well, my dears. Practice straightforwardly, my dears, for the realization of an exclusively happy world, because it was through such a practice that we ourselves have been reborn in an exclusively happy world"?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’

“So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

“Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”

“Potthapada, it’s as if a [heterosexual]man were to say, ‘I’m in love with the most beautiful woman in this country,’ and other people were to say to him, ‘Well, my good [heterosexual]man, this most beautiful woman in this country with whom you are in love: do you know if she’s of the warrior caste, the priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?’ and, when asked this, he would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘Well then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she’s tall, short, or of medium height? Whether she’s dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you know what village or town or city she’s from?’ When asked this, he would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you’ve never known or seen the woman you’re in love with?’ When asked this, he would say, ‘Yes.’

“So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the words of that [heterosexual]man turn out to be unconvincing?”

“Yes, lord … ”

“In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

“Yes, lord … ”

DN 9

Cheers! Have a great night!!!