The process of letting go of desires? How to

[Whoami]

Hi all beautiful rays of sunshine

I have a question, what is the process of becoming free of desire?
Im not talking about ALL desires but just ONE, for example the desire to own material things. Or the desire to have a partner.
Is there a specific process or does it just naturally dissapear if you dont feed them?(for the exemples; not buying any things/engage in a lonely life), and then embrace the pain when the desire is not met until you give it up?

I have sort of successfully somehow in my journey lost a great deal of my physical desires for intimacy and sex, but that just happend out of the blue.

Peace be upon you
WhoAmI

[Goofaholix]

Desire is often a neutral word and can be applied to wholesome things, for example "I desire wisdom", or "harmony is desirable".  I prefer to use the word craving for the sorts of desires you are talking about here, another common word used is greed.

Basically you just slowing erode it's hold over you over time by again and again when you notice craving arise, notice how it arose, how it feels, what happens when you indulge, what happens when you don't, how it passes away.

When you give up something you used to crave it's a good idea to replace it with something else, something wholesome that diverts your attention from what you craved.

[running]

i put my desire on my spiritual practice and for whatever reasons it worked. i think desire and curiosity have similarity's. i suspect its the curiosity of the journey than overtook some previous desire on other things.

[Dhamma]

I have sort of successfully somehow in my journey lost a great deal of my physical desires for intimacy and sex, but that just happend out of the blue.

Peace be upon you
WhoAmI

Yes, because you are seeing sensual pleasures for what they really are. You want to be ruled by chemicals, or the reactive mind?

Good for you! I am glad you are seeing more clearly.

Peace and enlightenment.

[Whoami]

I have sort of successfully somehow in my journey lost a great deal of my physical desires for intimacy and sex, but that just happend out of the blue.

Peace be upon you
WhoAmI

Yes, because you are seeing sensual pleasures for what they really are. You want to be ruled by chemicals, or the reactive mind?

Good for you! I am glad you are seeing more clearly.

Peace and enlightenment.

Haha thanks or something.. i thing is that it did not happen when i meditated or anything, it just sortof happend out of the blue. Thats why i wonder how to let go of other desires

[Nicky]

Or the desire to have a partner.

Celibacy is the core essence of the traditional monastic or spiritual life. Once interest in sex & intimacy is dropped, generally, desires for other worldly things wane.

Generally, the way to give up such desires is to see their disadvantage. For example, proper moral sustainable relationships require much work & obligations. They are not merely just fun but generally require much sacrifice. For example, having a family requires much work to make money and dealing with family dramas & difficulties.

Traditionally, individuals interested in the spiritual life do not have interest in taking on the above challenges & obligations of family life.

 

[milco]

Or the desire to have a partner.

Celibacy is the core essence of the traditional monastic or spiritual life. Once interest in sex & intimacy is dropped, generally, desires for other worldly things wane.

Generally, the way to give up such desires is to see their disadvantage. For example, proper moral sustainable relationships require much work & obligations. They are not merely just fun but generally require much sacrifice. For example, having a family requires much work to make money and dealing with family dramas & difficulties.

Traditionally, individuals interested in the spiritual life do not have interest in taking on the above challenges & obligations of family life.

 

The 'challenges and obligations of family life' are amongst the most rewarding, satisfying and nourishing aspects of the human experience. The 'sacrifice' you refer to is so, so worth it. Plus the fact is that it 'makes the world go round'. No family, no little monks for future generations!

To equate family life with 'desires' and 'disadvantages' seems absurd to me. I understand that a monk or someone who has renounced worldly things may decide to go in that direction -- that is their choice -- but to imply that to be spiritual is incompatible with bringing up a family is ridiculous.

[Dhamma]

The 'challenges and obligations of family life' are amongst the most rewarding, satisfying and nourishing aspects of the human experience. The 'sacrifice' you refer to is so, so worth it. Plus the fact is that it 'makes the world go round'. No family, no little monks for future generations!

To equate family life with 'desires' and 'disadvantages' seems absurd to me. I understand that a monk or someone who has renounced worldly things may decide to go in that direction -- that is their choice -- but to imply that to be spiritual is incompatible with bringing up a family is ridiculous.

Well, technically Buddhists at their core don't see having children as a great joy, as we are only bringing more suffering into the world.

In the end, all clinging and desire must be let go of, including the desire to cling to our beloved families. So hard to see clearly on this one.

It must be said that Buddhism is not a family spiritual path, as you see in other major world religions.

That said, no good Buddhist would ever advise a parent to forsake their children to go live in the forest to become a monk - never! You'd be breaking the precepts and will do yourself major harm and to your child.

Married people with children are not inferior, nor does it mean that they cannot become more enlightened - they can indeed. It is best that you focus on your state in life now, whatever that may be.  Do not consider the idea that monks are superior, or that you somehow need to become one at some point in your life to become enlightened. Be the best at what you're doing now as a Buddhist (following Dharma, loving your family, becoming slowly less attached, etc.).

Celibacy is about seeing the emptiness of all phenomena, the inability for any sensual or worldly pleasure to being any kind of real and complete satisfaction. I know it sounds nihilistic and sad and, as you say, "ridiculous", but it's not at all when you see ultimate reality for what it is. It's our clinging minds that make us think so (our great delusions). You have plenty of lifetimes to get it right, as we all do.

We're all at different stages in our Paths. Lay people should not be comparing themselves to monks, or to lay celibates on the Buddhist path like myself.

A more enlightened person is not really giving up anything when they renunciate - they are actually liberating themselves from the bondage of desire.

Please enjoy your state in life that you are in now.  Live the Dharma (the moral part) and do proper meditations. Don't worry about renunciation of sensual pleasures. It's all fine and good as you are right now, friend.  Seriously.

[Dhamma]

Celibacy is the core essence of the traditional monastic or spiritual life. Once interest in sex & intimacy is dropped, generally, desires for other worldly things wane.

Generally, the way to give up such desires is to see their disadvantage. For example, proper moral sustainable relationships require much work & obligations. They are not merely just fun but generally require much sacrifice. For example, having a family requires much work to make money and dealing with family dramas & difficulties.

Traditionally, individuals interested in the spiritual life do not have interest in taking on the above challenges & obligations of family life.

Yes, you are correct in what you say. 

In the end, we're all an island. We must embrace the void of emptiness and face it head on. But we need to learn to face it with love. That is real peace when we accept ultimate reality. That is real happiness.

Folks, you need to love your families. But real love is not clinging to the people you love in the end.

I just don't want some members to give up on the Buddhist path, seeing it falsely as nihilistic. It is anything but. Sometimes the words are not there to describe the pure essence of Buddhism, and its most liberating path.

I love my parents to death. But I know in the end that they will at some point cease to be with me. It's reality. I need to love them without clinging to them. So hard for me, as I still have great delusions.

Love to all!

Peace and enlightenment.

[stillpointdancer]

Emptiness in Buddhism is tricky, but the idea is that eventually you see that emptiness is also empty as a 'thing'. Once you get that you get everything back again, but better. Although I don't like the religious use of the term 'faith', the understanding of a 'leap of faith' when you go abseiling, or parachuting or something for the first time is useful here. You take this leap of faith in seeing everything as empty, even emptiness, and then you get there.

[Dhamma]

Emptiness in Buddhism is tricky, but the idea is that eventually you see that emptiness is also empty as a 'thing'. Once you get that you get everything back again, but better. Although I don't like the religious use of the term 'faith', the understanding of a 'leap of faith' when you go abseiling, or parachuting or something for the first time is useful here. You take this leap of faith in seeing everything as empty, even emptiness, and then you get there.

Yes, even emptiness is empty.

Emptiness is often misunderstood, which is very concerning.

Emptiness has nothing to do with nihilism, meaninglessness, etc. It's simply the idea that nothing exists inherently on its side, frozen in time. Impossible for it to be otherwise.


Peace and enlightenment.

[raushan]

Or the desire to have a partner.

Celibacy is the core essence of the traditional monastic or spiritual life. Once interest in sex & intimacy is dropped, generally, desires for other worldly things wane.

Generally, the way to give up such desires is to see their disadvantage. For example, proper moral sustainable relationships require much work & obligations. They are not merely just fun but generally require much sacrifice. For example, having a family requires much work to make money and dealing with family dramas & difficulties.

Traditionally, individuals interested in the spiritual life do not have interest in taking on the above challenges & obligations of family life.

 

The 'challenges and obligations of family life' are amongst the most rewarding, satisfying and nourishing aspects of the human experience. The 'sacrifice' you refer to is so, so worth it. Plus the fact is that it 'makes the world go round'. No family, no little monks for future generations!

To equate family life with 'desires' and 'disadvantages' seems absurd to me. I understand that a monk or someone who has renounced worldly things may decide to go in that direction -- that is their choice -- but to imply that to be spiritual is incompatible with bringing up a family is ridiculous.

Hi milco,

absurd, ridiculous these words imply that you are absolutely certain that what you think is right. What you find absurd or ridiculous many people in today's world find it ridiculous. That's why there are 10 days of meditation retreats. These are for lay people for those who can't or don't want to become a monk. Also, there are family obligations for many. Even if they want to they can't become a monk. Many people in the developing nations have to take care of their parents when they grow up.  2 hours of practice daily is a gradual process that anyone can do. One shouldn't be concerned with celibacy or monkhood until they are really certain. But outright rejecting that ideas is also not good that's what you seems to be doing.

Also, monkhood isn't limited to the spiritual path. Many great artists, scientists never married in their life or didn't have children simply because they didn't have time. Newton, Nikola Tesla, Beethoven are some of the examples. It doesn't mean they were right and others were wrong. It simply means they gave priority to different things in life. They chose different paths.

[raushan]

Hi Dhamma,

You often use or describe Buddhist lingo with absolute certainty. I think assuming something that you know based on pure theoretical understanding isn't a good idea. I find myself also fascinated by new words or terms or sutta. But these shouldn't be used lightly. I feel the true meaning of words like Emptiness is beyond comprehensible until one experiences it.

[Dhamma]

Hi Dhamma,

You often use or describe Buddhist lingo with absolute certainty. I think assuming something that you know based on pure theoretical understanding isn't a good idea. I find myself also fascinated by new words or terms or sutta. But these shouldn't be used lightly. I feel the true meaning of words like Emptiness is beyond comprehensible until one experiences it.

Hi there!

What is theoretical about "emptiness"?  You cannot be a Buddhist if you don't believe in the emptiness of all phenomena, even if you are far from understanding it deep in your bones.  I've been studying and contemplating emptiness for quite a while. And, yes, it's a complicated term that can never be described in words - impossible.  A famous Tibetan monk teacher once said that emptiness cannot be ultimately explained but only experienced. How true! But emptiness must be discussed and taught in all schools of Buddhism. Listen, if I don't believe in emptiness, I may as well stop being a Buddhist. It's one of the foundations of this Path. It's not theoretical.

Appearance is empty; all pleasures are empty; all objects are empty; we are empty.  Emptiness doesn't mean nihilism or non-existence; it simply means  "empty of inherent existence". If we don't believe or try to understand emptiness, there is no reason to be a Buddhist.

Emptiness is a technique used to better deal with people you don't like (we are just bits and pieces), or understand that there is no inherently-existing enemy or bad person out there. We are all products of causes and conditions. Emptiness helps us deal with life, even if you don't fully grasp it, or know it deeply in our bones. Again, if it weren't for emptiness, I would never be a Buddhist.

How can you progress on the Buddhist path without delving into emptiness? Impossible.

It is true that in the Mahayana schools, emptiness is discussed and "preached" repeatedly (Zen/Chan/Seon, Tibetan, etc.). This is much less so in Theravada, where it is introduced slowly over time.  In Mahayana schools, one meditates or ponders emptiness from day one.

I may have misread what you are saying. I'm very sorry if I did.

I'm not technically a Theravada Buddhist. In other traditions, emptiness is all over the place. Many contemplate it every day. I am not sure that this is the case with lay people in the Theravada tradition. It's like non-duality. That word might get me into a little trouble here, too, because non-duality is not embraced in Theravada Buddhism as in the Mahayana schools.

But, I heed your suggestion actually. Instead of throwing out the term "emptiness" all the time, it might be better for me to describe emptiness in the current situation (social relations, etc.) without using the term. Describe how something is empty without mentioning emptiness. That would be much more helpful to lay persons not well-versed in the concept. Emptiness, after all, is often very misunderstood by lay Buddhists. I see your point, in that it can be dangerous to throw the term out when many people might not really understand it.

No, friend, I do not know emptiness deep in my bones, nor do I know non-duality deep in my bones (not sure Theravadan Buddhists really accept non-duality).

I am another Buddhist forum where Pali terms and Buddhist lingo are galore. LOL. And I do see where you are coming from: many of them throw hardcore Buddhist lingo without really understanding the concepts that well intellectually.

Yes, you can easily understand something quite well intellectually? But do you know it deep in your bones? That is the greater questions. But, with emptiness, you have to start somewhere.

Like Dharma Bum, I am mostly ignorant, but I know that emptiness is supreme in understanding Buddhism.

Peace and enlightenment, dear friend.  I offer you much love in the Dhamma.

[Nicky]

To equate family life with 'desires' and 'disadvantages' seems absurd to me. I understand that a monk or someone who has renounced worldly things may decide to go in that direction -- that is their choice -- but to imply that to be spiritual is incompatible with bringing up a family is ridiculous.

Thank you for your reply however I was answering the question for the other person. Therefore, to repeat, to give up desires it is best to discern the disadvantage or drawback of the thing. It is not easy to "renounce" something if the thing renounced is viewed positively.

For example, if you are married and have adulterous sexual desires for another person other than your partner, you should reflect upon the disadvantage or drawback of those adulterous sexual desires, such as: (i) family break up; (ii) harm to children; (iii) legal costs; (iv) division of assets; (v) loss of wealth; (vi) here & now rebirth as a hungry ghost, etc.

Kind regards 

[milco]

To equate family life with 'desires' and 'disadvantages' seems absurd to me. I understand that a monk or someone who has renounced worldly things may decide to go in that direction -- that is their choice -- but to imply that to be spiritual is incompatible with bringing up a family is ridiculous.

Thank you for your reply however I was answering the question for the other person. Therefore, to repeat, to give up desires it is best to discern the disadvantage or drawback of the thing. It is not easy to "renounce" something if the thing renounced is viewed positively.

For example, if you are married and have adulterous sexual desires for another person other than your partner, you should reflect upon the disadvantage or drawback of those adulterous sexual desires, such as: (i) family break up; (ii) harm to children; (iii) legal costs; (iv) division of assets; (v) loss of wealth; (vi) here & now rebirth as a hungry ghost, etc.

Kind regards 

I don't particularly disagree with your point about adultery. However, you were clearly referencing normal family relationships in your post.

For instance, you stated:

"Proper moral, sustainable relationships require much work & obligations. They are not merely just fun but generally require much sacrifice. For example, having a family requires much work to make money and dealing with family dramas & difficulties. Traditionally, individuals interested in the spiritual life do not have interest in taking on the above challenges & obligations of family life."

This statement, which was the bulk of your post, refers not to adulterous relationships, but issues associated with he traditional family. To me, it seemed to promote the idea that the 'dramas' of family life were somehow at odds with leading a spiritual life.

Again, I come back to the same point I have been making on numerous other posts: Are we here on this forum to discuss the route to some sort of monastic lifestyle, in which case fine, and I take your point; or are we just a group of people who work hard for a living and deal with the travails of life to the best of our ability, who are looking for some sort of balance...a means of finding peace and clarity and coping with normal stress and anxiety...through the practice of meditation?

[milco]

The 'challenges and obligations of family life' are amongst the most rewarding, satisfying and nourishing aspects of the human experience. The 'sacrifice' you refer to is so, so worth it. Plus the fact is that it 'makes the world go round'. No family, no little monks for future generations!

To equate family life with 'desires' and 'disadvantages' seems absurd to me. I understand that a monk or someone who has renounced worldly things may decide to go in that direction -- that is their choice -- but to imply that to be spiritual is incompatible with bringing up a family is ridiculous.

Well, technically Buddhists at their core don't see having children as a great joy, as we are only bringing more suffering into the world.

In the end, all clinging and desire must be let go of, including the desire to cling to our beloved families. So hard to see clearly on this one.

I keep coming across this word, 'clinging' in certain posts and can't help but feel it is being over-used, or at least stretched beyond any meaningful significance.

For instance, 'clinging' could be used to describe the behaviour of a stalker, i.e. someone who exhibits obsessive traits to the point that their behaviour becomes obsessive and abusive. They 'cling' to the a perceived notion of mutual attraction which is both damaging and delusional.

However, 'clinging' in the context in which you use it could equally refer to a mother's feeling of attachment towards her baby, a couple falling in love, a father's love for his son, and so on...

I find this 'one-size-fits-all' approach of describing attachments to worldly connections and relationships slightly baffling and unhelpful. I would actually go as far as to say that in conflating so many different things it promotes absolutes and dogmas.

[milco]

Or the desire to have a partner.

Celibacy is the core essence of the traditional monastic or spiritual life. Once interest in sex & intimacy is dropped, generally, desires for other worldly things wane.

Generally, the way to give up such desires is to see their disadvantage. For example, proper moral sustainable relationships require much work & obligations. They are not merely just fun but generally require much sacrifice. For example, having a family requires much work to make money and dealing with family dramas & difficulties.

Traditionally, individuals interested in the spiritual life do not have interest in taking on the above challenges & obligations of family life.

 

The 'challenges and obligations of family life' are amongst the most rewarding, satisfying and nourishing aspects of the human experience. The 'sacrifice' you refer to is so, so worth it. Plus the fact is that it 'makes the world go round'. No family, no little monks for future generations!

To equate family life with 'desires' and 'disadvantages' seems absurd to me. I understand that a monk or someone who has renounced worldly things may decide to go in that direction -- that is their choice -- but to imply that to be spiritual is incompatible with bringing up a family is ridiculous.

Hi milco,

absurd, ridiculous these words imply that you are absolutely certain that what you think is right. What you find absurd or ridiculous many people in today's world find it ridiculous. That's why there are 10 days of meditation retreats. These are for lay people for those who can't or don't want to become a monk. Also, there are family obligations for many. Even if they want to they can't become a monk. Many people in the developing nations have to take care of their parents when they grow up.  2 hours of practice daily is a gradual process that anyone can do. One shouldn't be concerned with celibacy or monkhood until they are really certain. But outright rejecting that ideas is also not good that's what you seems to be doing.

Also, monkhood isn't limited to the spiritual path. Many great artists, scientists never married in their life or didn't have children simply because they didn't have time. Newton, Nikola Tesla, Beethoven are some of the examples. It doesn't mean they were right and others were wrong. It simply means they gave priority to different things in life. They chose different paths.

All I am saying is that family life and spirituality can co-exist. There seems to be a real tension on this forum between the two -- as if they are polar opposites.

On the more narrow point about great artists choosing not to have children, I couldn't agree more with you. I don't have children. This was partly circumstantial and partly through choice. My favourite recording artist of the 1980s was Morrissey of that great, incomparable, Mancunian pop group, the Smiths. He was both childless and devoutly celibate, bless him!

In trying to advocate that the family and spirituality are compatible I am certainly not knocking celibates, the childless, artists, mavericks and misfits and all who fall into the 'non-family' category. I am one of them.

[raushan]

All I am saying is that family life and spirituality can co-exist. There seems to be a real tension on this forum between the two -- as if they are polar opposites.

On the more narrow point about great artists choosing not to have children, I couldn't agree more with you. I don't have children. This was partly circumstantial and partly through choice. My favorite recording artist of the 1980s was Morrissey of that great, incomparable, Mancunian pop group, The Smiths. He was both childless and devoutly celibate, bless him!

In trying to advocate that the family and spirituality are compatible I am certainly not knocking celibates, the childless, artists, mavericks and misfits and all who fall into the 'non-family' category. I am one of them.

I don't see any great tension here. I think this forum exists for like past 20 years. And all kinds of people come here and discuss Dhamma. Married, celibate, noncelibate. Meditation's original intention was never to reduce anxiety or cure depression. These are modern world problems. And Some researchers found that meditation can be helpful in dealing with these issues. So yeah some may use meditation just for the purpose to cure their stress or anxiety and leave it to that. If you want just that then you should just practice for a few minutes daily and not involve with the kind of discussion on this forum that opposes your point of view.

Originally, Meditation in India always had one intention i.e. liberation. If you aren't Indian or not familiar with the Indian religion then many of these things will seem odd to you. Family life does prohibit a person from doing a lot of stuff it's not a mystery. That's why many people say if you want to take any major risk in life do it before the marriage.

As Dhamma explained in his previous posts Buddhism at its core sees taking birth in this world is basically suffering. If you have a problem with these ideas I would suggest you just take the meditation part and leave the rest of the Buddhist literature. These are called secular Buddhists. Many people already do that. And it's fine too.

[Dhamma]

As Dhamma explained in his previous posts Buddhism at its core sees taking birth in this world is basically suffering. If you have a problem with these ideas I would suggest you just take the meditation part and leave the rest of the Buddhist literature. These are called secular Buddhists. Many people already do that. And it's fine too.

Thank you so much! I so wanted to say this, but couldn't find the words at the time of responding.

Yes -- Milco needs to focus on "Secular Buddhism", which is perfectly fine. I do not - I am a Religious Buddhist, which is also perfectly fine.

That is where the conflict lies. While Secular Buddhism and Religious Buddhism have much in common, there are fundamental differences that arise.

I want Milco to be happy.  He seems to be following the Dhamma to some degree, I beg him to continue.  I also want him to continue to meditate as well and participate on the forum.

I am not a secular Buddhist. Therein lies the rub. But there is no problem. We are on similar but different paths.

It's all fine. Love to you Milco, and to you all.

May we fulfill our deepest wish for happiness.

[Matthew]

Yes -- Milco needs to focus on "Secular Buddhism", which is perfectly fine. I do not - I am a Religious Buddhist, which is also perfectly fine.

I don't think anyone can say what the other needs to focus on. We all find our own path.

I would disagree that any such thing as a Religious Buddhist truly exists, for example. This seems contradictory to the teachings of the Buddha which are based in empiricism and experience - and not blind faith: blind faith being the thing that is distinctive about religion, whereas empiricism and experience are more tied to philosophy and being.

Having said that, I am not hung up about the idea. If you want to define yourself as a "Religious Buddhist" at this point on your path that is your business - though you must realise you will, at some point, have to drop all this labelling.

[Dhamma]

Yes -- Milco needs to focus on "Secular Buddhism", which is perfectly fine. I do not - I am a Religious Buddhist, which is also perfectly fine.

I don't think anyone can say what the other needs to focus on. We all find our own path.

I would disagree that any such thing as a Religious Buddhist truly exists, for example. This seems contradictory to the teachings of the Buddha which are based in empiricism and experience - and not blind faith: blind faith being the thing that is distinctive about religion, whereas empiricism and experience are more tied to philosophy and being.

Having said that, I am not hung up about the idea. If you want to define yourself as a "Religious Buddhist" at this point on your path that is your business - though you must realise you will, at some point, have to drop all this labelling.

Hi Matthew!

I already knew you were going to respond to my using the word "religious" in this regard. But, let it be known: I am well aware of the  the implications of blind faith, etc. in association with the word "religion".  It wasn't the best term to use, but it's what I choose to use. It's used in the Buddhist world by many Buddhist teachers.

I'm not defining anyone's path, but we know that there are Secular Buddhists and Non-Secular Buddhists. I don't like to pit one against the other, as it I see it as highly unproductive. That said, we are forced to label when living in a Non-Buddhist world. And, yes, there are differences between the two, and that merits discussions at times, provided they are civil and substantive.

You are right: labels are empty of all inherent existence, and ultimately, they serve no good purpose. Anyone with enough Buddhist training and meditation comes to this realization, sooner or later.

It is simply that Milco is on a different path than I am, which is fine. Only he knows the correct path for him in the end, whatever that may be.  I wasn't judging anyone - simply pointing out that his ideas of clinging, etc. are not as sharply refined as mine. No one is better than anyone else, for that matter. People have different points of awakening, and it's not always linear. No one is judging anyone. Again, we are all at different points on our Paths, depending upon our culture, family responsibilities, interest, financial status, karma, etc.


Much love in the Dhamma to Matthew, and to everyone else.

[milco]

I think am going to leave you all to your own various paths. I am on the wrong board here and my participation in these discussions doesn't serve anyone's interests.

[Matthew]

It is simply that Milco is on a different path than I am, which is fine. Only he knows the correct path for him in the end, whatever that may be.  I wasn't judging anyone - simply pointing out that his ideas of clinging, etc. are not as sharply refined as mine. ..... No one is judging anyone.

Keep on fooling yourself. You are judging, measuring yourself against others: "not as sharply refined as mine".

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat you are not doing it ... when you clearly are.

This is clinging to view, unwholesome, and it is an obstacle on the path.

[Matthew]

I think am going to leave you all to your own various paths. I am on the wrong board here and my participation in these discussions doesn't serve anyone's interests.

I am sorry to see you go.