Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
- Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not > anything you do to *yourself* to "make yourself > look more attractive." It's something that you do > to the other person, to shift them into a state > of attention in which they find you more attrac- > tive. So they focus on you more than they might > have otherwise. However, once you've got their > attention, if you have a big wart on the end of > your nose and a beer belly like Homer Simpson's, > other factors take over and the other party might > tend to "wake up" enough to think, "*What* could > I have been thinking?" :-) I've been trying to think of cinema examples of this "wrapping" thing, and the first one I can think of is done by a man, not a woman. And, given the actor who is doing this, I think he was doing it while he filmed the scene, and that some of that comes through when you watch it. It's in the first Star Wars film, when Obi-Wan Kenobi is sitting in the drone talking to two guards while the droids they're looking for are sitting next to him. "These are not the droids you're looking for." That's it. You can also see it in a tremendous film starring Isabelle Adjani. It's called One Deadly Summer in English (L'ete meurtrier in French). Adjani breezes into a small French village and wraps pretty much every man for 50 kilometers in every direction. Probably the best cinema example of the phenomenon I'm talking about, with a woman wrapping men. Wish she'd breeze into my village. :-) Garance in Children Of Paradise. If you'll notice, the actress (Arletty) is not all that attractive. But we're as captivated as the three men in the film are. Johnny Depp in Don Juan de Marco. In spades. Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons. Mena Suvari (the cheerleader) in American Beauty. Both Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek in Desperado. Forrest Whitaker in The Color Of Money (an example of "pulling it in"). Russell Crowe in pretty much everything (not his characters but as an actor). Tamasaburo Bando (one of the best Kabuki actors in the world) in Demon Pond, playing two different women. He's a guy. Kim Basinger in L.A. Confidential. Barbara Hershey in The Last Temptation Of Christ. Daniel Craig in the new James Bond flick. Nicole Kidman in To Die For. Emmanuelle Beart in pretty much everything. Many others...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:58 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: I agree with you that real attraction is probably very complex, but this is pretty simple. It's not anything you do to *yourself* to "make yourself look more attractive." It's something that you do to the other person, to shift them into a state of attention in which they find you more attrac- tive. What you guys obviously want is: (drumroll) Love Potion Number Nine I took my troubles down to Madame Ruth You know that gypsy with the gold-capped tooth She's got a pad down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine Sellin' little bottles of Love Potion Number Nine I told her that I was a flop with chicks I've been this way since 1956 She looked at my palm and she made a magic sign She said "What you need is Love Potion Number Nine" She bent down and turned around and gave me a wink She said "I'm gonna make it up right here in the sink" It smelled like turpentine, it looked like Indian ink I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink I didn't know if it was day or night I started kissin' everything in sight But when I kissed a cop down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine -- guitar solo -- I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink I didn't know if it was day or night I started kissin' everything in sight But when I kissed a cop down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine He broke my little bottle of Love Potion Number Nine Love Potion Number Nine Love Potion Number Nine Love Potion Number Nine by Leiber / Stoller
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq, > > This may fall into a category of experiences that you have > had that I have not. Possibly. > It seems like this kind of energy power might get you to look at > someone, but attraction seems so much more complex to me. > Each age group and stage of life seems to join the party with a > different agenda and expectations that must be satisfied to make > it work. I agree with you that real attraction is probably very complex, but this is pretty simple. It's not anything you do to *yourself* to "make yourself look more attractive." It's something that you do to the other person, to shift them into a state of attention in which they find you more attrac- tive. So they focus on you more than they might have otherwise. However, once you've got their attention, if you have a big wart on the end of your nose and a beer belly like Homer Simpson's, other factors take over and the other party might tend to "wake up" enough to think, "*What* could I have been thinking?" :-) > As soon as someone starts talking with you a whole different > set of rules apply, no matter what the unconscious signals > are being sent on a more primal level. The only guys that > I see going under a woman's spell seem to be guys who can't > put together a good relationship so they give their power > to women. And therefore possibly great husband material in ages in which finding a guy to put a roof over your head was a big priority. :-) > I think is may be the same for women. I would *hope* that women are deep enough not to fall for occult flash for long. But I've certainly seen a lot of them fall for it for short periods of time. > Most of us seem to get superficially attracted and then have > a variety of criteria that a desirable partner needs before > we can be deeply attracted. What I'm talking about is that initial attraction. One would have to "push it out" for a long, long time to overcome a reasonable set of "criteria" in the other party. > I don't know what mojo power can work outside those needs > being met. That's part of the point. It's kind of a lowvibe thing to do, spiritually. You're manipulating some- one for the momentary "rush" you get from getting them to focus their attention on you. Big whoop. There are so much more interesting things out there, both relationship-wise and spiritually. > Like the criteria you mentioned for how auditory a woman > must be and her relationship with music lyrics, which I > thought was spot on for me as well. Kinda thought you'd identify with that one. :-) It's important. > I may be momentarily attracted to some one exuding "something", > but if she sounds like Heather Graham I lose all interest > quickly. Heather Graham has a voice? :-) > (She might actually be a good example of the limits of primal > mojo) She might. But I think she's actually a pretty ballsy actor. She takes chances that Just A Pretty Face or someone who was Just Another Occult Wrap Artist wouldn't take. She's been in some neat movies. Not that I'm wrapped or anything. :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Turq, This may fall into a category of experiences that you have had that I have not. It seems like this kind of energy power might get you to look at someone, but attraction seems so much more complex to me. Each age group and stage of life seems to join the party with a different agenda and expectations that must be satisfied to make it work. As soon as someone starts talking with you a whole different set of rules apply, no matter what the unconscious signals are being sent on a more primal level. The only guys that I see going under a woman's spell seem to be guys who can't put together a good relationship so they give their power to women. I think is may be the same for women. Most of us seem to get superficially attracted and then have a variety of criteria that a desirable partner needs before we can be deeply attracted. I don't know what mojo power can work outside those needs being met. Like the criteria you mentioned for how auditory a woman must be and her relationship with music lyrics, which I though was spot on for me as well. I may be momentarily attracted to some one exuding "something", but if she sounds like Heather Graham I lose all interest quickly. (She might actually be a good example of the limits of primal mojo) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Just curiously, would "mini-siddhis" and "occult > > > > > abilities" include, say, the release of pheromones? > > > > > > > > Possibly, but that's not what I'm talking about. > > > > It's more like "lines of power" emanating from > > > > person who can to this. These lines are actually > > > > *visible* when you've been trained to see them, > > > > and last I checked pheromones aren't. > > > > > > Also, as I understand the research, pheromones > > > are "nose specific," meaning that the smell > > > that would be attractive to one person would > > > not necessarily be attractive to another. > > > > Sure, but if you could learn to consciously > > control their release, you might also be able > > to learn to adjust their "formula" to attract > > the person you wanted to attract. > > It's possible, but it sounds awfully complicated > and energy-inefficient to me. Everyone is born > with the ability to manipulate other people > energetically. It's just that (according to this > theory), most men are not aware that they have > this ability (because they've never had to use > it in male-dominated societies), and most women > who do know how to use it don't know *consciously* > what they're doing. > > It's a set of skills that are learned via "trans- > mission," and not taught in words. That, FYI, is > how we were taught to do this, and to "see" these > energy lines, by being in the same room with someone > who was able to do it, and watching in a certain > state of alertness *as* it was done. Not a word was > spoken, but within a few short sessions if you had > developed the attunement necessary to make trans- > mission of any kind work, you could do it, too. > It's just the weirdest thing. > > Thus (and this is me speculating here, not anything > I was told) I would imagine that many women learn > this technique of energy manipulation the same > way, by just growing up in proximity to other > women who are doing it, even if those women don't > know consciously what they are doing. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
> > > > Just curiously, would "mini-siddhis" and "occult > > > > abilities" include, say, the release of pheromones? > > > > > > Possibly, but that's not what I'm talking about. > > > It's more like "lines of power" emanating from > > > person who can to this. These lines are actually > > > *visible* when you've been trained to see them, > > > and last I checked pheromones aren't. > > > > Also, as I understand the research, pheromones > > are "nose specific," meaning that the smell > > that would be attractive to one person would > > not necessarily be attractive to another. > > Sure, but if you could learn to consciously > control their release, you might also be able > to learn to adjust their "formula" to attract > the person you wanted to attract. It's possible, but it sounds awfully complicated and energy-inefficient to me. Everyone is born with the ability to manipulate other people energetically. It's just that (according to this theory), most men are not aware that they have this ability (because they've never had to use it in male-dominated societies), and most women who do know how to use it don't know *consciously* what they're doing. It's a set of skills that are learned via "trans- mission," and not taught in words. That, FYI, is how we were taught to do this, and to "see" these energy lines, by being in the same room with someone who was able to do it, and watching in a certain state of alertness *as* it was done. Not a word was spoken, but within a few short sessions if you had developed the attunement necessary to make trans- mission of any kind work, you could do it, too. It's just the weirdest thing. Thus (and this is me speculating here, not anything I was told) I would imagine that many women learn this technique of energy manipulation the same way, by just growing up in proximity to other women who are doing it, even if those women don't know consciously what they are doing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > > > *Because of* the need to attract a > > > > man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained > > > > a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men > > > > did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make > > > > up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make > > > > someone fall in love with you." In his view almost > > > > every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > > > > and most of the time involved them using their occult > > > > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > > > > s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he > > > > pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in > > > > doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. > > > > > > Just curiously, would "mini-siddhis" and "occult > > > abilities" include, say, the release of pheromones? > > > > Possibly, but that's not what I'm talking about. > > It's more like "lines of power" emanating from > > person who can to this. These lines are actually > > *visible* when you've been trained to see them, > > and last I checked pheromones aren't. > > Also, as I understand the research, pheromones > are "nose specific," meaning that the smell > that would be attractive to one person would > not necessarily be attractive to another. Sure, but if you could learn to consciously control their release, you might also be able to learn to adjust their "formula" to attract the person you wanted to attract. Bhairitu has talked about techniques he's learned, or at least knows about, for attracting the opposite sex. I wonder if they involve that kind of control of ordinarily involuntary biological processes. The > abilities I'm talking about work on anyone, > not just the opposite sex. Well, actually you were talking specifically about women's "occult" abilities to attract men in the post I quoted, hence my question about pheromones. They're what is > often happening on a subtle level when we > refer to someone as "charismatic," as > opposed to someone we characterize as "sexy." > > Thus the same abilities can be used to "hook" > an audience and get them to focus on the > speaker. IMO that's exactly what is happen- > ing with a number of famous spiritual ' > teachers; they're using a kind of occult > "wrap" to make themselves seem more inter- > esting than they really are. As opposed to > other teachers who never have to resort to > this kinda thing. However, some people's charisma comes across even on tape (e.g., Clinton, Leonard Bernstein), whereas with others it only works "live" in fairly close proximity. Plus which, Clinton's charisma seemed to actually work in reverse for a fair number of people. MMY has never seemed particularly charismatic to me on videotape, but many of those who have been around him "live" have a very different impression. So I suspect it's a little more complicated.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > *Because of* the need to attract a > > > man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained > > > a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men > > > did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make > > > up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make > > > someone fall in love with you." In his view almost > > > every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > > > and most of the time involved them using their occult > > > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > > > s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he > > > pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in > > > doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. > > > > Just curiously, would "mini-siddhis" and "occult > > abilities" include, say, the release of pheromones? > > Possibly, but that's not what I'm talking about. > It's more like "lines of power" emanating from > person who can to this. These lines are actually > *visible* when you've been trained to see them, > and last I checked pheromones aren't. Also, as I understand the research, pheromones are "nose specific," meaning that the smell that would be attractive to one person would not necessarily be attractive to another. The abilities I'm talking about work on anyone, not just the opposite sex. They're what is often happening on a subtle level when we refer to someone as "charismatic," as opposed to someone we characterize as "sexy." Thus the same abilities can be used to "hook" an audience and get them to focus on the speaker. IMO that's exactly what is happen- ing with a number of famous spiritual ' teachers; they're using a kind of occult "wrap" to make themselves seem more inter- esting than they really are. As opposed to other teachers who never have to resort to this kinda thing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > *Because of* the need to attract a > > > man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained > > > a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men > > > did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make > > > up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make > > > someone fall in love with you." In his view almost > > > every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > > > and most of the time involved them using their occult > > > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > > > s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he > > > pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in > > > doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. > > > > Just curiously, would "mini-siddhis" and "occult > > abilities" include, say, the release of pheromones? > > Possibly, but that's not what I'm talking about. > It's more like "lines of power" emanating from > person who can to this. These lines are actually > *visible* when you've been trained to see them, > and last I check pheromones aren't. OK. It's just that as an involuntary biological signal of sexual interest (in both sexes), pheromones can be a very powerful subliminal attractor. I wonder if one could be trained to consciously turn pheromones on or off at will, and/or to consciously detect them. That might be a "siddhi" worth having.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > *Because of* the need to attract a > > man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained > > a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men > > did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make > > up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make > > someone fall in love with you." In his view almost > > every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > > and most of the time involved them using their occult > > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > > s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he > > pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in > > doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. > > Just curiously, would "mini-siddhis" and "occult > abilities" include, say, the release of pheromones? Possibly, but that's not what I'm talking about. It's more like "lines of power" emanating from person who can to this. These lines are actually *visible* when you've been trained to see them, and last I check pheromones aren't.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Interesting Q&A session, interesting question. For what > it's worth, Rama (Frederick Lenz) used to give a very > strong talk entitled, "Why don't more women attain > enlightenment?" A strong part of his focus was on the > enlightenment of women, and he had some equally strong > opinions on the subject. I'll gloss over a few of them > here, for anyone who is interested. > > First, he said that from his perspective women should > *theoretically* be more able to realize enlightenment > than men, because of the more refined qualities of their > subtle bodies. So it's a puzzler when you look at his- > torical records and discover that so few women actually > *did* realize enlightenment. His explanation for why > this is was twofold -- because of men and because of > women. > > Men have pretty much always suppressed women, socially > and spiritually. The interview you posted, even though > Swami Bharati Tirtha did his best to dodge the subject, > made the case that the very scriptures his religion is > based on and the structures of the religious hierarchies > within that religion are inherently biased against > women. Add to that the social realities of being a > woman in many eras of history -- the foremost being > unable to work for pay, and thus being dependent on > either finding a man to support them or living with > their birth family for life -- and you have an envir- > onment that was hardly conducive to the study of > enlightenment. > > *Because of* the need to attract a > man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained > a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men > did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make > up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make > someone fall in love with you." In his view almost > every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > and most of the time involved them using their occult > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he > pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in > doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. Just curiously, would "mini-siddhis" and "occult abilities" include, say, the release of pheromones?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote > snip > > In his view almost every romantic relationship was initiated > > by women, > > and most of the time involved them using their occult > > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > > s attention and get him to focus on her. > snip > > I had a relationship with a lady -her female instincts so > finely honed that this cat and mouse game was right there > out in the open, (and just beneath the surface somehow ). > She nearly caught her prey, and yet I knew it was not the > right match. How hard it was to pry myself away. It was > extrodinary to see her ply her trade. Good stuff. We > still remain distant friends. That's a good moment, when you realize 1) that someone is trying to "wrap" you into loving them, and 2) and even better, that it really isn't a good idea for either of you to allow yourself to be wrapped. It breaks the samskaric patterns and allows new patterns to develop. Once you've tuned in to this occult "wrapping" stuff, it's really fun to watch it in action. I used to live in Malibu, in a neighborhood where a lot of the residents were movie and TV stars, and boy! did they know how to do this. Now in most cases they didn't *consciously* know how to do this, or even that they were doing it, but it was really obvious that they *were* doing it if you'd been trained to "see" energetically. Someone *not* famous but with a lot of occult phwam! would walk into a rest- aurant and all the conversation would stop, all eyes focused on her (or, occasionally, him). And it wasn't even necessarily the most attractive women who could do this; it was an energy thang, not a beauty thang. Case in point: Lesley Ann Warren. NOT a terribly attractive woman in person, but when she "pushes it out" she can stop traffic. The issue, from a spiritual perspective, is being able to "wrap" people this way and NOT doing it. >From an occult point of view, the ability to "push it out" and attract other people's attention is far less valuable than the ability to "pull it in" and use your energy for something far more interesting. The most interesting person I ever encountered in this regard was Bruce Willis. He has the ability to be as famous as he is and be in a crowd of people and "go invisible," to the point that almost no one notices him. Being able to "push it out" is kid stuff, occultly; being able to "pull it in" this way is far more difficult.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
> Somebody's getting his buttons pushed. Na na na na na na. > > lurk ---yep, caught that one right before it left my mind forever. thanks for remembering.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote snip In his view almost every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > and most of the time involved them using their occult > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > s attention and get him to focus on her. snip I had a relationship with a lady -her female instincts so finely honed that this cat and mouse game was right there out in the open, (and just beneath the surface somehow ). She nearly caught her prey, and yet I knew it was not the right match. How hard it was to pry myself away. It was extrodinary to see her ply her trade. Good stuff. We still remain distant friends. lurk >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? (or just "cosmic debris")
Since someone brought up Zappa, he of course wrote this song after a brief encounter with Chimnoy who I believe Zappa met via Jean-Luc Ponty's Mahavishnu Orchestra connections. Jim gordon (drums) John guerin (drums) Aynsley dunbar (drums) Ralph humphrey (drums) Jack bruce (bass) Erroneous (bass) Tom fowler (bass) Frank zappa (bass, lead vocals, guitar) George duke (keyboards, background vocals) Don "sugar cane" harris (violin) Jean-luc ponty (violin) Ruth underwood (percussion) Ian underwood (saxophone) Napoleon murphy brock (saxophone, background vocals) Sal marquez (trumpet) Bruce fowler (trombone) Ray collins (background vocals) Kerry mcnabb (background vocals) Susie glower (background vocals) Debbie (background vocals) Lynn (background vocals) Ruben ladron de guevara (background vocals) Robert camarena (background vocals) The mystery man came over And he said "i'm outta sight!" He said for a nominal service charge I could reach nirvana tonight If i was ready, willing and able To pay him his regular fee He would drop all the rest of His pressing affairs and devote His attention to me But i said "look here brother Who you jiving with that cosmik debris? Now who you jiving with that cosmik debris? Look here brother, don't waste your time on me" The mystery man got nervous And he fidgeted around a bit He reached in the pocket of his mystery robe And he whipped out a shaving kit Now i thought it was a razor And a can of foaming goo But he told me right then when the top popped open There was nothin' his box won't do With the oil of aphrodite, and the dust of the grand wazoo He said "you might not believe this, little fella But it'll cure your asthma too" And i said "look here brother Who you jiving with that cosmik debris? Now what kind of a guru are you, anyway? Look here brother, don't waste your time on me" (don't waste your time) "i've got troubles of my own", i said "and you can't help me out So, take your meditations and your preparations And ram it up your snout!" "but i got the crystal ball", he said And held it to the light So i snatched it all away from him And i showed him how to do it right I wrapped a newspaper 'round my head So i looked like i was deep I said some mumbo-jumbo, then I told him he was going to sleep I robbed his rings and pocketwatch And everything else i found I had that sucker hypnotized He couldn't even make a sound I proceeded to tell him his future, then As long as he was hanging around I said "the price of meat has just gone up And your old lady has just gone down!" And i said "look here brother-who you Jiving with that cosmik debris? Now is that a real poncho or is that a sears poncho? Don't you know, you could make more money as a butcher? So, don't waste your time on me" Don't waste it, don't waste your time on me (shanti) - Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
No this will clear it up once and for all. You can't live without her, so you might as well be sweet and make good lovin. That's the settled issue. - Original Message - From: "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? > 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" 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. :-) >> > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
I've seen Lenz in person. Jim knows next to shoe leather about TB. - Original Message - From: "TurquoiseB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:23 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. :-) > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > > > > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > > > > tolerate disagreement with your views. > > > > > > Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over > > > wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one > > > in which we held completely opposite viewpoints > > > on karma, but in which there was no uptightness > > > or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until > > > you tried to barge into the discussion and turn > > > it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a > > > 'false reading' of what karma as determinism > > > implies. You probably noticed that we both > > > ignored you, because we were having a mutually > > > respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn > > > it into something else. :-) > > > > Let's have a look at the comment of mine > > Barry refers to: > > > > -- > > > > [Barry wrote:] > > > Someone > > > who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as > > > determinism would never even *try* to come up with > > > technologies to ease the suffering of those born > > > with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the > > > kids "deserved" them. > > > > FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence > > of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false > > reading" of what karma as determinism implies. > > > > -- > > > > This is what Barry perceives to be "uptightness > > or intolerance" on my part. In fact, I was simply > > *making a correction* to Barry's misunderstanding > > of karma as determinism. No "argument" was > > involved or necessary, just acceptance of the > > correction by him. > > You've just proved my point, Judy. > > You believe that you were making a "correction" > of my "misunderstanding." That is *in fact* what I was doing. > > I made no such "correction" of Curtis' position > on karma, nor did I suggest it was based on any > kind of "misunderstanding." I fully accepted the > legitimacy of his position, and presented a > counterpoint to it based on my understanding. Well, actually you did, in exactly the same way I made my comment to you. You explained to Curtis, for example, that the notion of "deserving" doesn't necessarily enter into a belief in karma, nor does such a belief necessarily imply anything like "God's will" or feeling like a victim (all things that Curtis had been assuming in his side of the discussion). Look at what you wrote again that I was commenting on: "Someone who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as determinism would never even *try* to come up with technologies to ease the suffering of those born with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the kids 'deserved' them." And I responded: FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false reading" of what karma as determinism implies. What's the difference, Barry? Hint: The difference is who made the correction. When a TMer does it, it's "uptight" and "intolerant" and "threatened." When you do it, it's nothing of the sort. That was my point to start with, see? > You don't discuss, Judy, you "correct" other > people's "misunderstandings." Uh, no. Sometimes I discuss, and sometimes, when necessary, I correct. In this case, you made a mistake, and I corrected you. And *you* are all hot and bothered because I corrected your mistake, labeling the correction as "intolerant" and "uptight," when those terms clearly refer to your reaction rather than my correction. It's fine to disagree with the view of karma as determinism. But to disagree with it on the basis of your misunderstanding of what it implies doesn't make any sense. You obviously recognize this yourself, since you pointed out Curtis's misunderstandings of what a belief in karma implies. That's all I was doing with regard to your misunderstanding of karma as determinism. Curtis didn't freak out about your having made those comments, but you're freaking out about mine. And that, again, is my point: You label TMers as "uptight" and "threatened" and "intolerant" when they are simply making corrections, when you have absolutely no problem doing it yourself.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way > > > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > > > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the > consequences, > > > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > > > > > Ooooh, spooky! > > > > It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have > > *never* insinuated what you think I did. > > [From the post Jim is referring to:] > > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > > > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > > > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > > > say I didn't try to warn you. > > Sounds like an insinuation of "bad ju-ju" coming Jim's > way to me as well. > Yes, the warning to me in addition to the reminder to LLundrub that he will die before he is ready are just innocuous little phrases, meant to help us, according to the Big Buddhist. Odd that he hasn't spoken that way to others here. Perhaps it should be phrased openly to all who post here: 1. Careful what you say, for you may be judged as non-Realized, and therefore be disrespected on this forum, if you say the wrong thing, and 2. If you criticize the Big Buddhist, you will die before you are ready to die. Shouldn't these pearls of wisdom be added to the FFL intro, just so any newbies here know in advance?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
You're right, of course, Sal. Just curious. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > >> > > **snip** > >>> Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > >>> what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) > >> > >> Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But > > if > >> you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic > >> concoctions some TM people have come up with. > >> > >> Sal > >> > > **end** > > > > Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? > > > > Marek, > I don't want to make anybody feel bad, some may be on this list. And > my kids' names aren't run-of-the-mill either. > > Sal >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? See my message to Vaj. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> > **snip** >>> Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's >>> what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) >> >> Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But > if >> you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic >> concoctions some TM people have come up with. >> >> Sal >> > **end** > > Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? > Marek, I don't want to make anybody feel bad, some may be on this list. And my kids' names aren't run-of-the-mill either. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Vaj wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if > you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic > concoctions some TM people have come up with. > > > Shaniquah Shakti? I missed that one. Compared to that, Moon sounds almost normal. Alright, I'll play--try Beyana, Toody, and Terinel. A couple of these poor kids have been trying to get away from their names almost as long as they've had them. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Sal Sunshine wrote: Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic concoctions some TM people have come up with. Shaniquah Shakti?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > **snip** > > Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > > what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) > > Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if > you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic > concoctions some TM people have come up with. > > Sal > **end** Uh-oh, Sal, I may be an offender. Any examples you could share? Marek
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:16 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Very nice, thanks. When I was in high school I was so taken with >> Tolkien and Middle Earth and the whole cast of characters that >> populated it that I was determined to name the first two children I >> fathered after Frodo's two friends, Meriodac (Merry) and Pippin. >> >> Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the >> time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though, >> just not Middle Earth ones. > > Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) Moon dropped the second part of her name--makes it much nicer. But if you think those are awful, you ought to hear some of the Vedic concoctions some TM people have come up with. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: **snip** > > Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the > > time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though, > > just not Middle Earth ones. > > Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's > what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-) > **end** No, not quite that odd. Their mother and I were adroit enough (just barely) to avoid Dadaism. They've managed to thrive, regardless. But then, so have Moon Unit and Dweezil.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > > > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > > > tolerate disagreement with your views. > > > > Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over > > wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one > > in which we held completely opposite viewpoints > > on karma, but in which there was no uptightness > > or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until > > you tried to barge into the discussion and turn > > it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a > > 'false reading' of what karma as determinism > > implies. You probably noticed that we both > > ignored you, because we were having a mutually > > respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn > > it into something else. :-) > > Let's have a look at the comment of mine > Barry refers to: > > -- > > [Barry wrote:] > > Someone > > who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as > > determinism would never even *try* to come up with > > technologies to ease the suffering of those born > > with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the > > kids "deserved" them. > > FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence > of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false > reading" of what karma as determinism implies. > > -- > > This is what Barry perceives to be "uptightness > or intolerance" on my part. In fact, I was simply > *making a correction* to Barry's misunderstanding > of karma as determinism. No "argument" was > involved or necessary, just acceptance of the > correction by him. You've just proved my point, Judy. You believe that you were making a "correction" of my "misunderstanding." I made no such "correction" of Curtis' position on karma, nor did I suggest it was based on any kind of "misunderstanding." I fully accepted the legitimacy of his position, and presented a counterpoint to it based on my understanding. I made it very clear that that's what I was doing in my first post to him, and he expressed his appreciation of that fact. You don't discuss, Judy, you "correct" other people's "misunderstandings." That's just what you are, and why you chose the profession you did. In that profession, it makes you valuable. On this forum, it only makes you a fanatic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" > wrote: > > > > > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our > > > way > > > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > > > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the > > > consequences, > > > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > > > > > Ooooh, spooky! > > > > It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have > > *never* insinuated what you think I did. > > [From the post Jim is referring to:] > > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > > > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > > > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > > > say I didn't try to warn you. > > Sounds like an insinuation of "bad ju-ju" coming Jim's > way to me as well. So there are two of you who are paranoid? Cool. At least you can keep each other company. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > He referred to me as an 'obsessive fuck', which then > > becomes "merely corrected a few of your inaccurate > > statements". LOL! > > The term was 'obsessed fuck,' Jim. It's posted, > in context, in my earlier reply. A sane person, > reading the entire four paragraphs, might interpret > them as gentle advice to someone who really *was* > acting like an obsessed fuck at the time Or an even saner person might interpret those paragraphs as an attempted putdown of someone who had pushed his buttons by an obsessed fuck who was exceptionally uptight over having had his buttons pushed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" wrote: > > > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way > > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the consequences, > > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > > > Ooooh, spooky! > > It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have > *never* insinuated what you think I did. [From the post Jim is referring to:] > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > > say I didn't try to warn you. Sounds like an insinuation of "bad ju-ju" coming Jim's way to me as well.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > > tolerate disagreement with your views. > > Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over > wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one > in which we held completely opposite viewpoints > on karma, but in which there was no uptightness > or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until > you tried to barge into the discussion and turn > it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a > 'false reading' of what karma as determinism > implies. You probably noticed that we both > ignored you, because we were having a mutually > respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn > it into something else. :-) Let's have a look at the comment of mine Barry refers to: -- [Barry wrote:] > Someone > who believed in a (IMO) false reading of karma as > determinism would never even *try* to come up with > technologies to ease the suffering of those born > with birth defects; they'd think somehow that the > kids "deserved" them. FWIW, this is *by no means* a necessary consequence of a reading of karma as determinism. It's a "false reading" of what karma as determinism implies. -- This is what Barry perceives to be "uptightness or intolerance" on my part. In fact, I was simply *making a correction* to Barry's misunderstanding of karma as determinism. No "argument" was involved or necessary, just acceptance of the correction by him. Barry appears to see the phrase "false reading" as somehow inflammatory, when in fact I was echoing the very same phrase *he* had used in the quote immediately preceding in (incorrectly) putting down the karma-as-determinism view. I couldn't possibly have made my own points more definitively than Barry just did for me: he cannot tolerate disagreement with (or correction of) his views; and no matter how mild a comment a TMer may make, he perceives the TMer to be "uptight." Notice also the fantasy element I mentioned in my earlier post: Barry imagines that I wanted to start an argument because he and Curtis were having a "mutually respectful discussion," even going on to suggest that I was "threatened" by his (incorrect) view. It's quite obvious from the foregoing who is *really* feeling "threatened" here. Thanks for playing, Barry! > > I've had similar on-opposite-sides-of-the- > philosophical-fence with many others here. > It's *you* who has to turn every disagreement > on *matters of opinion* into a head-to-head > argument, Judy. It's *you* who is threatened > when someone believes something different than > you do, and who feels compelled to argue over > it, often calling the other party a "coward" > or worse when they don't feel like arguing. > And it's *you* who usually claims to have "won" > those arguments, when you've managed to drag > the discussion down to the level of argument- > ation, or who even claims to have "won" when > the other person just ignores you. > > And again, I doubt that there are many here > who would disagree with this assessment of you. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > have tended to ignore women.
> > >
> > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend
to
> > make it into the books and historical records. There are many
more
> > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > unrecorded.
>
> I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> society whose records were written by women, it
> would probably appear that there were very few
> enlightened *men*.
>
Agree.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way > when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could > continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the consequences, > much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. > > Ooooh, spooky! It's all in the "ear of the beholder," Jim. I have *never* insinuated what you think I did. And as for my comment to Llun today, almost *everybody* dies before they are ready to. That's all I had in mind. If you saw something else in it, that's what's in *your* mind. Here, for example, is what you refer to above as an "insinuation of 'bad ju-ju' coming your way." > Jim, with all due respect, I don't think you're fooling > anyone. This has nothing to do with Tibetan Buddhism > *or* your pretend claim that some people here are... > uh...TB TBs. It's all about having made a fool of > yourself a couple of days ago by posting some *really* > stupid stuff, and about the fact that you're still > pissed with yourself about having done that. > > I don't think it's helping to convince anyone here > that you have achieved any kind of realization for > you to act like an obsessed fuck. In fact, I suspect > it's helping to convince them that you and realization > are not quite on the friendly terms you have been > hinting you are. > > This is just a suggestion. You can keep on trying to > dig up and post as much dirt about the Dalai Lama and > about Tibetan Buddhism as you like. He ain't my teacher, > and it's not my tradition, so it's not like it affects > me one way or another. But I really do think you're off > the deep end on this one, Jim, 'way out in the Injured > Ego Gotta Get Revenge Zone, and that rarely works out > the way you think it will when you're caught up in the > middle of the obsession. > > Signing off now...you do what you think is right. > But if you decide to keep this stuff up and it winds > up comin' back on ya in ways you didn't foresee, don't > say I didn't try to warn you. What I had in mind at the time was people on this forum losing respect for you. At least one went on record as having done just that after your little trolling adventure, and I suspect that he was not alone in feeling that way. To have perceived this statement and the one I made to Llun earlier as some kind of veiled threat *does* say a lot about one of us, Jim, but I think it says a lot more about you than it does me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Very nice, thanks. When I was in high school I was so taken with > Tolkien and Middle Earth and the whole cast of characters that > populated it that I was determined to name the first two children I > fathered after Frodo's two friends, Meriodac (Merry) and Pippin. > > Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the > time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though, > just not Middle Earth ones. Not as odd as Moon Unit and Dweezil, I hope. That's what Frank Zappa named his kids. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Barry, you're far and away the most consistently > uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot > tolerate disagreement with your views. Yeah, right, Judy. Like the "discussion over wine" I had with Curtis the other day, the one in which we held completely opposite viewpoints on karma, but in which there was no uptightness or intolerance. Or, at least there wasn't until you tried to barge into the discussion and turn it *into* an argument, calling my opinion "a 'false reading' of what karma as determinism implies. You probably noticed that we both ignored you, because we were having a mutually respectful discussion, and you wanted to turn it into something else. :-) I've had similar on-opposite-sides-of-the- philosophical-fence with many others here. It's *you* who has to turn every disagreement on *matters of opinion* into a head-to-head argument, Judy. It's *you* who is threatened when someone believes something different than you do, and who feels compelled to argue over it, often calling the other party a "coward" or worse when they don't feel like arguing. And it's *you* who usually claims to have "won" those arguments, when you've managed to drag the discussion down to the level of argument- ation, or who even claims to have "won" when the other person just ignores you. And again, I doubt that there are many here who would disagree with this assessment of you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > wrote: > > > > > > > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > > > > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > > > > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > > > > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > > > > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > > > > uptight about what you said. > > > > > > However, it seems that any such corrections by > > > TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are > > > characterized as the TMers "getting uptight." > > > > Only when they obviously *are* uptight, enough > > to resort to character assassination in their > > replies. > > You mean, the way you do? > > That's been your modus operandi for > > over a decade, so I don't think anyone can be > > blamed for thinking that criticism of TM makes > > you more than a little uptight. > Also, don't forget the insinuations of 'bad ju-ju' coming our way when we criticize him. I think he said something like I could continue my criticism of his religion, but beware the consequences, much as he said to Kirk that he would die before he was ready. Ooooh, spooky!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Very nice, thanks. When I was in high school I was so taken with
Tolkien and Middle Earth and the whole cast of characters that
populated it that I was determined to name the first two children I
fathered after Frodo's two friends, Meriodac (Merry) and Pippin.
Luckily enough for my two children that sankalpa had faded by the
time of their arrival. They still got stuck with odd names, though,
just not Middle Earth ones.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis"
wrote:
> >
> > Hey, Sparaig, what is the background on the moniker, Sparaig?
> > Sparrow is cool and seemingly related to Sparaig, but I've always
> > been puzzled by it. If you don't mind my asking, that is.
> >
> > Marek
>
> Sparrow was short for Sparrowhawk, the wizard in Usala K. LeGuinn's
Earthsea series. I
> tried to use it as my SCA name but was veoted. Sparrow seemed
acceptable, at least
> unoffcially. Sparaig was chosen because it was Celtic. I THOUGHT it
meant Sparrowhawk,
> but apparently only means Sparrow, at least according to all the
etymological sources I can
> now find.
>
> Evangeline autographed my copies of the Mabinogion with "For
Sparrow, who thinks he is
> a bird." Those were stolen by my roommate in the USAF (typical).
>
>
>
>
> >
> > **
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > > > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > > > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > > > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > > > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > > > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > > > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > > > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > > > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > > > > information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > > > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > > > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > > > > have tended to ignore women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who
> > tend to
> > > > > make it into the books and historical records. There are
many
> > more
> > > > > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass
on,
> > > > > unrecorded.
> > > >
> > > > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> > > > society whose records were written by women, it
> > > > would probably appear that there were very few
> > > > enlightened *men*.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that
kind of
> > nonsense...
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
> > >
> > >
> > > note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take
the "nonsense"
> > comment as irony. She
> > > knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
> > >
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > > > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > > > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > > > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > > > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > > > uptight about what you said. > > > > However, it seems that any such corrections by > > TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are > > characterized as the TMers "getting uptight." > > Only when they obviously *are* uptight, enough > to resort to character assassination in their > replies. You mean, the way you do? That's been your modus operandi for > over a decade, so I don't think anyone can be > blamed for thinking that criticism of TM makes > you more than a little uptight. Barry, you've been into "character assassination" as long as I've known you. Even the mildest comment from a TMer is likely to elicit a rant from you involving elaborate fantasies about how the TMer thinks and believes and behaves, all of it negative, and very largely inaccurate. > You probably haven't noticed that other people > here can state their positive beliefs about TM > and about Maharishi *without* having to put > someone else down in the same post. You have > a long history of being unable to do this. That's fascinating. I *often* do this, in fact, always have, even in response to you, and you're completely blind to it. The fact is that what's almost impossible is for me to make a positive comment about TM or MMY without your attacking me for doing so. Same with Lawson and Jim and other TM supporters. > You may *claim* that you're not angry when > you react in what I would suggest *most* > people here perceive as an angry manner, > but...uh...we don't believe you. Says Barry, resorting to his mantra of appeal to a consensus that he couldn't possibly have any idea about. And at the same time, projecting *his* tendency to anger onto me. Barry, you're far and away the most consistently uptight person on this forum. You simply cannot tolerate disagreement with your views.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey, Sparaig, what is the background on the moniker, Sparaig?
> Sparrow is cool and seemingly related to Sparaig, but I've always
> been puzzled by it. If you don't mind my asking, that is.
>
> Marek
Sparrow was short for Sparrowhawk, the wizard in Usala K. LeGuinn's Earthsea
series. I
tried to use it as my SCA name but was veoted. Sparrow seemed acceptable, at
least
unoffcially. Sparaig was chosen because it was Celtic. I THOUGHT it meant
Sparrowhawk,
but apparently only means Sparrow, at least according to all the etymological
sources I can
now find.
Evangeline autographed my copies of the Mabinogion with "For Sparrow, who
thinks he is
a bird." Those were stolen by my roommate in the USAF (typical).
>
> **
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > > > information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > > > have tended to ignore women.
> > > > >
> > > > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who
> tend to
> > > > make it into the books and historical records. There are many
> more
> > > > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > > > unrecorded.
> > >
> > > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> > > society whose records were written by women, it
> > > would probably appear that there were very few
> > > enlightened *men*.
> > >
> >
> > You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that kind of
> nonsense...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
> >
> >
> > note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take the "nonsense"
> comment as irony. She
> > knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
> >
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Hey, Sparaig, what is the background on the moniker, Sparaig?
Sparrow is cool and seemingly related to Sparaig, but I've always
been puzzled by it. If you don't mind my asking, that is.
Marek
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > > information.
> > > >
> > > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > > have tended to ignore women.
> > > >
> > > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who
tend to
> > > make it into the books and historical records. There are many
more
> > > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > > unrecorded.
> >
> > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> > society whose records were written by women, it
> > would probably appear that there were very few
> > enlightened *men*.
> >
>
> You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that kind of
nonsense...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
>
>
> note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take the "nonsense"
comment as irony. She
> knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
>
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > > uptight about what you said. > > However, it seems that any such corrections by > TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are > characterized as the TMers "getting uptight." Only when they obviously *are* uptight, enough to resort to character assassination in their replies. That's been your modus operandi for over a decade, so I don't think anyone can be blamed for thinking that criticism of TM makes you more than a little uptight. You probably haven't noticed that other people here can state their positive beliefs about TM and about Maharishi *without* having to put someone else down in the same post. You have a long history of being unable to do this. You may *claim* that you're not angry when you react in what I would suggest *most* people here perceive as an angry manner, but...uh...we don't believe you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal > > society whose records were written by women, it > > would probably appear that there were very few > > enlightened *men*. > > So you're saying that in these hypothetical > matricarchal societies, the women would be > as sexist and as stupid as the men? Very good, Barry. For once you haven't, uh, misunderstood me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > have tended to ignore women.
> > >
> > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
> > make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
> > enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> > unrecorded.
>
> I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> society whose records were written by women, it
> would probably appear that there were very few
> enlightened *men*.
>
You'd have to go back to before the Mabinogion to find that kind of nonsense...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabinogi
note: Evangeline Walton was a dear friend, so take the "nonsense" comment as
irony. She
knew me as "sparrow" rather than sparaig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangeline_Walton
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> > wrote:
> > > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > > in the historical record as having achieved
> > > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > > historical record--either because they weren't
> > > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > > have tended to ignore women.
> >
> > Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend
> > to make it into the books and historical records. There are many
> > more enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass
> > on, unrecorded.
>
> I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
> society whose records were written by women, it
> would probably appear that there were very few
> enlightened *men*.
So you're saying that in these hypothetical
matricarchal societies, the women would be
as sexist and as stupid as the men?
:-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on > the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the > way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz > killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected > a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got > uptight about what you said. However, it seems that any such corrections by TMers of inaccurate statements by TM critics are characterized as the TMers "getting uptight."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
> > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > in the historical record as having achieved
> > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > historical record--either because they weren't
> > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > information.
> >
> > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > have tended to ignore women.
> >
> Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
> make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
> enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> unrecorded.
I should add that in a hypothetical matriarchal
society whose records were written by women, it
would probably appear that there were very few
enlightened *men*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
> > I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> > in the historical record as having achieved
> > enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> > achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> > who did were noted as having done so in the
> > historical record--either because they weren't
> > mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> > or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> > bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> > information.
> >
> > Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> > to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> > records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> > have tended to ignore women.
> >
> Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
> make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
> enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
> unrecorded.
>
Which raises the question "why so few female enlightened teachers?"
The answer of course, is that even if a female is enlightened, like as not, her
boyfriend will
get the credit...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lenz may have been perceptive about some areas of psychology > regarding men and women. However, I've read some things about > him and his seduction of women under the guise of helping them > spiritually that were disgusting to put it mildly. Having known a few of these women and heard how they described their affairs with him *while they were going on*, and then later, when they discovered that they were not going to become Mrs. Lenz, I don't tend to take all reports seriously. One woman bored my ass off telling me how wonderful her first sexual encounter was with him, and then six months later went to the papers and claimed that he had waved a gun around and threatened her. That detail was...uh...missing in her earlier recounting of the story, to me and to dozens of other people she talked to. That said, there were some of his female students that he definitely should *not* have gotten involved with, and did. I consider that a major failing on his part. > With him wildly enjoying for a while the role of a wolf > in sheep's clothing, I find it impossible to take anything > he said respectfully or seriously. So you're one of those judgmental people who believe that if someone has a fault or faults that you don't like, they cannot have any good qualities? Or that they cannot possibly know anything worth teaching, in a spiritual sense? Just checking, because last time I checked the teacher you revere (while never having met him) has a fairly well-documented history of having been a wolf in sheep's pussies himself. Wouldn't that mean that, to be consistent, you should find it impossible to take anything Maharishi says respectfully or seriously? > He was a mixed up kid who discovered a gift for gab, and > was killed by his guilt. I don't think guilt had anything whatsoever to do with his death. Ego, yes. Drugs, yes. An inability to take responsibility for his actions, yes. But guilt, no. > PS My earlier comments regarding Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism in > general were designed to see if I could elicit similar behavior from > those on here who after religiously knocking TM and the followers of > Maharishi, then castigate those who reply as TBs. It worked- The > Buddhists mirrored the TB behavior perfectly. No need to repeat any > of it- Just clarifying that it was more than a trolling exercise. Your perception that any of the "Tibetan Buddhists" on the group with the exception of Llundrub reacted the way you claim is as flawed as your perception of Lenz killing himself out of guilt. Vaj and I merely corrected a few of your inaccurate statements; only Llun got uptight about what you said. I just figured you were having a hissy fit because you'd embarrassed yourself earlier in the discussion. :-) But your description of what you had in mind above, even if it were true, is the definition of trolling. That's what you were doing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
> in the historical record as having achieved
> enlightenment is not because so few women actually
> achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
> who did were noted as having done so in the
> historical record--either because they weren't
> mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
> or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
> bother to note or even actively suppressed that
> information.
>
> Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
> to women's history to emphasize that the standard
> records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
> have tended to ignore women.
>
Yep- agreed. It is also just the enlightened *teachers* who tend to
make it into the books and historical records. There are many more
enlightened men and women who just do their thing and pass on,
unrecorded.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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. :-) > Lenz may have been perceptive about some areas of psychology regarding men and women. However, I've read some things about him and his seduction of women under the guise of helping them spiritually that were disgusting to put it mildly. With him wildly enjoying for a while the role of a wolf in sheep's clothing, I find it impossible to take anything he said respectfully or seriously. He was a mixed up kid who discovered a gift for gab, and was killed by his guilt. PS My earlier comments regarding Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism in general were designed to see if I could elicit similar behavior from those on here who after religiously knocking TM and the followers of Maharishi, then castigate those who reply as TBs. It worked- The Buddhists mirrored the TB behavior perfectly. No need to repeat any of it- Just clarifying that it was more than a trolling exercise.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
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" 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. :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interesting Q&A session, interesting question. For what
> it's worth, Rama (Frederick Lenz) used to give a very
> strong talk entitled, "Why don't more women attain
> enlightenment?" A strong part of his focus was on the
> enlightenment of women, and he had some equally strong
> opinions on the subject. I'll gloss over a few of them
> here, for anyone who is interested.
>
> First, he said that from his perspective women should
> *theoretically* be more able to realize enlightenment
> than men, because of the more refined qualities of their
> subtle bodies. So it's a puzzler when you look at his-
> torical records and discover that so few women actually
> *did* realize enlightenment.
I'd wonder whether the reason so few women are
in the historical record as having achieved
enlightenment is not because so few women actually
achieved enlightenment, but rather because so few
who did were noted as having done so in the
historical record--either because they weren't
mentioned at all by the men who wrote the record,
or because these men didn't recognize or didn't
bother to note or even actively suppressed that
information.
Some feminists use the term "herstory" to refer
to women's history to emphasize that the standard
records, largely written by men ("HIS-story"),
have tended to ignore women.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
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. Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men, you must name your enlightenment first to find the lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, in India. 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. So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as dead an issue. - Original Message - From: "TurquoiseB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? > Interesting Q&A session, interesting question. For what > it's worth, Rama (Frederick Lenz) used to give a very > strong talk entitled, "Why don't more women attain > enlightenment?" A strong part of his focus was on the > enlightenment of women, and he had some equally strong > opinions on the subject. I'll gloss over a few of them > here, for anyone who is interested. > > First, he said that from his perspective women should > *theoretically* be more able to realize enlightenment > than men, because of the more refined qualities of their > subtle bodies. So it's a puzzler when you look at his- > torical records and discover that so few women actually > *did* realize enlightenment. His explanation for why > this is was twofold -- because of men and because of > women. > > Men have pretty much always suppressed women, socially > and spiritually. The interview you posted, even though > Swami Bharati Tirtha did his best to dodge the subject, > made the case that the very scriptures his religion is > based on and the structures of the religious hierarchies > within that religion are inherently biased against > women. Add to that the social realities of being a > woman in many eras of history -- the foremost being > unable to work for pay, and thus being dependent on > either finding a man to support them or living with > their birth family for life -- and you have an envir- > onment that was hardly conducive to the study of > enlightenment. > > But it was this very suppression of women that, in > Rama's view, helped to create the other "gotcha" at > work in the question of why more women don't attain > enlightenment. *Because of* the need to attract a > man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained > a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men > did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make > up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make > someone fall in love with you." In his view almost > every romantic relationship was initiated by women, > and most of the time involved them using their occult > abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' > s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he > pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in > doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. > Finding a man was their only hope of getting out of > the parental house and having a life even remotely > their own. > > [ If you bristle at this notion, I might suggest that > if you're a woman you might not appreciate being > busted, and if you're a guy, you might not appreciate > the idea that your romantic decisions in life have not > entirely been your own. :-) Me, I've studied relationships > for most of my life, and I have no problems with this view. ] > > So he felt that although this occult manipulation of > men's attention fields was justified, given the status > that the men had relegated women to, it was terrifically > problematic for those women who wanted to realize their > enlightenment. Why? Because if you are in the state of > attention in which you are consciously manipulating others, > that state of attention to some extent *disallows* the > state of attention that supports enlightenment. The more > you use your attention to manipulate others occultly, > the less of that attention is available for the study > of enlightenment. A large part of his study, when working > with women, involved helping them to realize consciously > when they were manipulating others occultly, and in > presenting alternatives to doing so. > > The original lecture was two hours long, so this "capsule > version" of it hardly does the subject justice, but since > Jonathan opened the subject for discussion, I thought I'd > throw out some of these ideas for people's consideration. > Over and out... > > Unc > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?
Interesting Q&A session, interesting question. For what it's worth, Rama (Frederick Lenz) used to give a very strong talk entitled, "Why don't more women attain enlightenment?" A strong part of his focus was on the enlightenment of women, and he had some equally strong opinions on the subject. I'll gloss over a few of them here, for anyone who is interested. First, he said that from his perspective women should *theoretically* be more able to realize enlightenment than men, because of the more refined qualities of their subtle bodies. So it's a puzzler when you look at his- torical records and discover that so few women actually *did* realize enlightenment. His explanation for why this is was twofold -- because of men and because of women. Men have pretty much always suppressed women, socially and spiritually. The interview you posted, even though Swami Bharati Tirtha did his best to dodge the subject, made the case that the very scriptures his religion is based on and the structures of the religious hierarchies within that religion are inherently biased against women. Add to that the social realities of being a woman in many eras of history -- the foremost being unable to work for pay, and thus being dependent on either finding a man to support them or living with their birth family for life -- and you have an envir- onment that was hardly conducive to the study of enlightenment. But it was this very suppression of women that, in Rama's view, helped to create the other "gotcha" at work in the question of why more women don't attain enlightenment. *Because of* the need to attract a man to support them, (in Rama's view) women attained a higher proficiency with the occult arts than men did. They became adept at the mini-siddhis that make up the "science of attraction," the ability to "make someone fall in love with you." In his view almost every romantic relationship was initiated by women, and most of the time involved them using their occult abilities to (at the very least) attract the man' s attention and get him to focus on her. And, as he pointed out, there is really "no harm, no foul" in doing this, because women *had very few alternatives*. Finding a man was their only hope of getting out of the parental house and having a life even remotely their own. [ If you bristle at this notion, I might suggest that if you're a woman you might not appreciate being busted, and if you're a guy, you might not appreciate the idea that your romantic decisions in life have not entirely been your own. :-) Me, I've studied relationships for most of my life, and I have no problems with this view. ] So he felt that although this occult manipulation of men's attention fields was justified, given the status that the men had relegated women to, it was terrifically problematic for those women who wanted to realize their enlightenment. Why? Because if you are in the state of attention in which you are consciously manipulating others, that state of attention to some extent *disallows* the state of attention that supports enlightenment. The more you use your attention to manipulate others occultly, the less of that attention is available for the study of enlightenment. A large part of his study, when working with women, involved helping them to realize consciously when they were manipulating others occultly, and in presenting alternatives to doing so. The original lecture was two hours long, so this "capsule version" of it hardly does the subject justice, but since Jonathan opened the subject for discussion, I thought I'd throw out some of these ideas for people's consideration. Over and out... Unc
