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
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.
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: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist? Interesting QA 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
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
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?
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 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 1:26 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?
I've seen Lenz in person. Jim knows next to shoe leather about TB. - Original Message - From: TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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
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: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 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 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? (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?
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.
