You wrote: “At the nadir of unenlightened experience in ascetic traditions is sexuality.”

I have read a number of books about Taoism and Hinduism discussing this idea of sexual desire, but is this true of all ascetic traditions? If so, I am guessing this stems from the idea that desire is commonly considered the cause of all suffering and sexual desire is so strong that it must be a really bad thing, spiritually speaking. Beyond this, sex is somehow supposed to be only used for procreation, which is a silly judgment created by inculcation into some societal abnormal norm.

The problem with this line of thinking, though, stems from the fact that desire has gotten a bad rap. I’m in the midst of writing an article on this topic. Basically, desire is neither good nor bad; it’s necessary for us to navigate life, yet in excess, like anything else, it can be a distraction.

Regarding enlightenment, which is a term that is quite problematic and often misused, the mind needs to be quiet enough to see what has always been present but has been obscured by thought. Sex is viewed as a powerful distraction, but this would have to depend on the individual, wouldn’t it? Gambling, drug abuse, alcohol, anger, and being a cult member could be just as distracting, to offer a few examples.

There are many tenets about spirituality that are assailable, and you touch on a number of them.

It seems to me that the people who do the most explaining and writing about spirituality and enlightenment really do not speak from personal knowledge; they are only regurgitating and interpreting what they have heard. Therefore there are all sorts of absurdities and inconsistencies about enlightenment and how to achieve it, which is why it remains such a mystery when in fact it is quite simple.

You have a way of writing that simultaneously amuses me and makes me consider that you’ve made a good point. You wrote: “Performing the sex act itself is an appalling imposition on most enlightened states of mind since this act accentuates our embodiment, and the domain of physical bodies is the closest we come to the Hell of our imaginings.”

Again, this is predicated on a misunderstanding arising from spiritual/religious interpretation and it sounds like this comes from the East as well as Christianity. Everything that’s fun and pleasurable is bad; I am surprised the Church doesn’t outlaw eating pizza and french fries.

The real matter, for those seeking spiritual freedom is whether a vice or desire overpowers the mind and thereby disallows it from seeing with thoughtless clarity. There are a number of people who were considered enlightened who had active sex lives.

To put this another way, enlightened people need to eat (this was illustrated in the Buddha myth when Siddhartha nearly starved himself to death). Does this mean that the desire to eat is an impediment to enlightenment? No, not unless your idea of eating is like Donald Trump’s or Orson Wells’ and it is obsessive and keeps the mind so busy that it cannot be quiescent.

People tend to make confident statements about things they have never personally investigated without the interference of their own egoic selves. Is there a soul or a higher self? I have never found such a thing, and it seems absurd, because it implies that we are fragmented beings having various parts, higher, lower, and sideways. What causes this thinking is the self, which has applied the necessity of fragmenting the world— for practical reasons —to its own self.

Lastly, some may argue that so-called spiritual traditions are stupid and worthless because they seem to target and vilify our innate desires and animal instincts. This, however, is a misinterpretation of what's going on. It's not about denying one's instincts, body, or natural tendencies, but rather recognizing how such factors get in the way of discovering what we truly are beyond the limited sense of self, which is quite deluded. Finding out what one is is not even on the radar or bucket list for most people. No matter. But if this is not one's goal, why rail against it and why let it be offensive?

I found your article to be quite good and a fair assessment.