Borat definitively settled this question with his cultural wisdom from Kazakhstan's laws of nature.
"We say in Kazakhstan, "You find me woman with brain, I find you a horse with...Wings."" He also has quoted scientific research done in his country proving that a woman's brain is smaller than a mans. I hope this clears this issue up once and for all. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <llundrub@> wrote: > > > > Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than > > a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit > > which none of you can get out of your mind as if that > > illusion made some bit of difference. > > Not had your coffee yet today, Llun? :-) > > I *get* it. You don't like the guy, having heard stories > about him you didn't like. Some of those stories are true, > and even if all of them were true, he still offered some > very real knowledge and experiences to those who studied > with him. Me, I'm comfortable with regarding him as a > guy with problems who nonetheless taught me some useful > things about spiritual development. I feel the same way > about Maharishi. > > > Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men... > > But *far* fewer women realize enlightenment than men. > That has been true in every era, and still seems to > be true today. I think the Rama guy had a clue or two > as to why that is. > > > ...you must name your enlightenment first to find the > > lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, > > in India. > > "Where women reign" is not the issue. Where a large > number of the women *students* realize their enlight- > enment is. Name one tradition where that is true. > I'll wait. > > > Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the > > female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana > > you would meet plenty of enlightened women. > > *I* would not be so foolish as to meet someone and > consider them enlightened, without, say, meditating > with them quite a few times, in different situations > and environments. If you have lower standards, you > can consider as many people enlightened as you want. > > > So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as > > dead an issue. > > The guy's daid all right. So will you be, and much > sooner than you'd like. So it goes... :-) > > Remember back to when you almost stormed off this > group in a huff because Jim was doing a troll thang > about Tibetan Buddhism? At that time you were all > self-righteous posturing about how lowvibe it was > to rank on some study you'd never undertaken > personally and didn't understand. What has changed > in the last few weeks since then that enables you > to rank on someone you never met or studied with, > eh? :-) > > Hint: you just woke up needing to rant, and the > mention of someone you don't like gave you that > opportunity. Unlike you (in your previous rants > following Jim's posts), I'm not going to take > either your likes and dislikes or your rants > personally and threaten to storm off the group. > What you think of the Rama guy doesn't really > affect me one way or another. I have enough > on my plate just figuring out what *I* think > of him. :-) >
