DQ Misses the Point

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 2:20 am

I read somewhere that (and its heavily disguised) that men are more capable of reaching enlightenment etc than women

When will he realise that we are both male and female in equal measure, able to think and be both. Sure our immediate bodies give us one sexual designation or another but we are most certainly both . When we all recognise this we are one step closer to what in another thread I refer to as The Benign One .
Battles of the sexes as with batlles between theologies are just another load of conflicts to be overcome ...

Perhaps he should explore his sexuality a little more passively!!

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:31 am

Although I disagree with David on a lot of points, at least he can make sense.

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:54 am

What doesn't make sense to you?

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:58 am

emma,

I read somewhere that (and its heavily disguised) that men are more capable of reaching enlightenment etc than women

DQ's made it abundantly clear that women cannot reach enlightenment at all, short of being reborn as men. There is nothing "heavily disguised" about it. Given that there are clear and obvious differences between the ways the sexes think, unless you yourself are enlightened, and hence know precisely what enlightenment is, I cannot see how you could begin to make a coherent argument against his position.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:58 am

Pretty much everything you've written about so far. OS 012, creating a benign God, etc. I don't understand your agenda.

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:06 am

DQ's made it abundantly clear that women cannot reach enlightenment at all, short of being reborn as men. There is nothing "heavily disguised" about it. Given that there are clear and obvious differences between the ways the sexes think, unless you yourself are enlightened, and hence know precisely what enlightenment is, I cannot see how you could begin to make a coherent argument against his position.

The sexes think the same way. There is no difference to be found when one strips away Victorian and old hat values and norms. Both men and women can think, speak and act with truth, compassion and forebearance ....all that is needed to be enlightened.

Its not the yin, its not the yang, its both and the synergy of...

BTW I was being sarcastic about his hidden chauvanism

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:10 am

Pretty much everything you've written about so far. OS 012, creating a benign God, etc. I don't understand your agenda.

I have no agenda just a desire to share enlightenment.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:19 am

That's an agenda. If you desire to share enlightenment, it would help if your audience (me) understood what you were talking about...why its relevant..etc.

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:25 am

That is an agenda. Nothing inherently wrong with an agenda, especially when you admit and understand it.

Also, men and women think "differently" even on the bio-chemical level. Just yesterday, I read another article, this time on food processing, and the amount of time triglicerides take to break down in men and women. Yet another physical difference.

But I don't agree with DQ that physically gendered females are somehow magically and absolutely unable to reach understanding. Obviously, females have a socio-cultural role to play in their respective cultures, as do men. I have always tended to think he is being metaphorical with the "Woman" thing (males and femals both being "Women"), but some of his statements over the years have left me questioning that assumption. Anecdotes from his and Kevin's personal life simply do not impress me.

But the contributions he has made to Buddhist and reasoned thought and dialogue are impressive despite that potential flaw.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:30 am

emma,

The sexes think the same way.

Now, I know that is false.

Although I hate dabbling in the scientific, sex-specific behaviours are evident in both human toddlers and chimpanzee young'uns. Males of both species prefer toy cars and other moving objects; females prefer soft dolls that they can nurture. When given building materials, male children erect tall, teetering monuments; females build long low walls. Games of make-believe, even at young ages, differ in content. Very few males are mimicking the behaviour of their mothers. If nothing else, this proves that differences in thinking are not entirely dependent on cultural gender norms.

Throughout life, and especially during gestation and puberty, hormones are released which radically alter the functioning of the brain. The changes are significant enough to cause mental illnesses to manifest in different ways depending on the sex of the patient: treatment of different sexes is different. (In fact, there's also racial discrimination in mental illness manifestation, but I don't want to go into that).

I'm not choosing one sex or the other, but I am saying that we do think differently from a very young age, and these differences are significant for both behaviourists and psychiatrists.

Frick, look what you made me do. I went and pulled out the science card. I must not have a very strong argument.

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:42 am

re Agenda

Yes on reflection I agree, it is an agenda I supose and the negative connotation I associated with the word when I first read it is a reflection of my thinking, a slight defensive reflex to the remark made that I was not making any sense......

Re The way Sexes Think

Well yes on a basic level it looks like we think differently but we are both male and female, yang and yin. We have both male and female genes . In infants there is no intrinsic difference in thought patterns but in later years a combo of hormones and society norms kick in to split the sexes.

However if we are to advance in enlightenment terms it is necessary for us to re-unite the sexes. There is male in female and there is female in male. Only a synergy of the two can lead us to enlightenment . This synergy will reveal that there is little difference in the way men and women think at a deep level
we are not talking about map reading here. We are talking about how men and women view truth, compassion, humility etc

Men cannot achieve enlightenment without women and vice versa
Thank you for correcting some of my views

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:01 am

Re: re-uniting the sexes

If there's no fundamental difference between the way men and women think, then why should I bother with creating a synergy between them? Wouldn't that be redundant? ...but wait, it can't be redundant, because you said that I can't achieve enlightenment without women...

I'm confused. It honestly sounds like you are telling me to synergize something that is fundamentally the same to what I already have into what I already have to achieve something I don't have.

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:18 am

If there's no fundamental difference between the way men and women think, then why should I bother with creating a synergy between them? Wouldn't that be redundant? ...but wait, it can't be redundant, because you said that I can't achieve enlightenment without women...

I'm confused. It honestly sounds like you are telling me to synergize something that is fundamentally the same to what I already have into what I already have to achieve something I don't have.

The fundamental difference between the sexes is the way we treat them ie we point out the perceived, artificial, society-created differences. If we focus on the similarities we will get a fusion of the two sexes and ultimately a synergy. Synergy does not have to be between two polar opposites, but I take your point.

My "agenda" is to help spread that which is benign to all things and diminish what is negative to all things. it is certainly negative to warrant that women cannot attain enlightenment and that they are lacking in some matters (even if it could be argued that they are superior in other things)

1=truth 2=split/disunity and I think what I meant to say is that when we treat men and women not as equal but as similar with similar abilities and thought processes we will reach a synergistic fusion enabling better direction of thought. We would eliminate the stereotype

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:02 am

Tharan wrote:I have always tended to think he is being metaphorical with the "Woman" thing (males and femals both being "Women"), but some of his statements over the years have left me questioning that assumption. Anecdotes from his and Kevin's personal life simply do not impress me.

But the contributions he has made to Buddhist and reasoned thought and dialogue are impressive despite that potential flaw.

The fact that he doesn't live up to his values shows you either one of two things: 1 - the values are bull or 2 - he himself is bull. I personally think it's a mix of both.

Some people are charismatic. Hitler was, and we all know (well most of us think) that he wasn't a wise person...yet people did listen. It's easy to get carried away and not think when you have such a person talking at you...they can stimulate certain thoughts in you and lead you down a certain mental path...but it doesn't lead you to truth. It leads you to their conclusions.

A good way to tell if someone is wise, I think, is if they talk about the truth instead of talking about the way to truth. It's obvious I'm not wise, but at least I know that much. On the forums here, David mostly talks about the path. Not much about the end. We need to think about what motivates a person, instead of simply reading their words. Why would a person talk to others about the path to truth? There's always something in it for the speaker. In my opinion, it doesn't have to do with helping people to truth (which is delusional for a wise person to do), but it has to do with playing out your karma. Some people try to avoid reality by getting wasted and having a bunch of sex. David seems to do it by talking about the path to understanding it.

Also, if a person shows little ego, it's a good sign of wisdom...yet on the forum I've seen David's ego, in various forms. He himself admits that he's not perfectly enlightened.

Well, what is it when you're imperfect? You're the same as anyone else. Enlightenment shouldn't be downplayed like that.

About his contributions...I like Wisdom of the Infinite. It's good philosophy. Putting it alongside spirituality just doesn't cut it for me, though. Calling his enlightenment, "enlightenment", is very misleading. It makes people think he's talking about the same thing as Buddha. Then he can go on to talk about Buddhism as if his thinking were a branch of it...when really it's not.

You can't think your way to Nirvana. And in my opinion, after having accomplished all there has been to accomplish, enlightenment is nothing less than Nirvana. Because I have attained less, and I would never call what I've attained such a thing. This isn't a Zen like way of speaking, I'm being serious.

If Nirvana/perfection is a real thing that people can tap into, in a way, then this falls far short of that.

Maybe I could applaud David's effort. I certainly could never have done what he's done. But I cannot be impressed with his work overall, because there have simply been too many flaws.

Operating System (emma),

My "agenda" is to help spread that which is benign to all things and diminish what is negative to all things. it is certainly negative to warrant that women cannot attain enlightenment and that they are lacking in some matters (even if it could be argued that they are superior in other things)

It's a good agenda, but it seems like you're mixing that with philosophy and doing a very poor job of it. You're simply turning morality into math and calling it enlightenment. The fact that you mix it with a thing such as enlightenment forces me to say it's a negative agenda, despite its good intentions...because enlightenment is a thing very few have attained, if any. It may not be real. It's also something widely misunderstood. To say that you're enlightened isn't just wrong, it's un-benign. It messes with people's minds.

If you want to spread that which is benign, then just be a nice person and stop stroking your own ego with this stuff.

1=truth 2=split/disunity and I think what I meant to say is that when we treat men and women not as equal but as similar with similar abilities and thought processes we will reach a synergistic fusion enabling better direction of thought. We would eliminate the stereotype

My mind buzzes when I read stuff like this. It tunes it out naturally.

I remember you, as Tumbleman, from a while ago. You came here with the same OS 012 stuff, and back then it hardly made sense. Not that what you're saying is complicated. It just reads like you're nuts.

When I force myself to read statements like this, tuning out my buzzing brain, what I get out of it is essentially nothing. You just try to create systems, which makes little sense, because reality can be grasped as a system. Everything already has its category, but you want to create more cateogories with numbers. 1=truth, 2=split/disunity....this makes no sense. Why it makes no sense...because there's no reason to give these things numbers!

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:23 am

It's a good agenda, but it seems like you're mixing that with philosophy and doing a very poor job of it. You're simply turning morality into math and calling it enlightenment. The fact that you mix it with a thing such as enlightenment forces me to say it's a negative agenda, despite its good intentions...because enlightenment is a thing very few have attained, if any. It may not be real. It's also something widely misunderstood. To say that you're enlightened isn't just wrong, it's un-benign. It messes with people's minds.

I disagree with you. We are all enlightened but for some it only lasts seconds. For others days and for a few years . It is relatively easy to be enlightened but hard to keep it up. The moment I said I was enlightened I lost my enlightenment, but soon regained it when I checked that I was not speaking from ego . We lose enlightenment not only thro ego but also when we doubt ourselves or suffer fear etc
I do not think this messes with people's minds either, because my intent is pure (I have checked this) I am not here to inflate my ego, I have none, I am just the sum of my thoughts and I cultivate benign thoughts whenever I can.....

If you want to spread that which is benign, then just be a nice person and stop stroking your own ego with this stuff.

I am nice but I want to know why members such as you seem to focus on my perceived faults rather than contributing to my two posts

1=truth 2=split/disunity and I think what I meant to say is that when we treat men and women not as equal but as similar with similar abilities and thought processes we will reach a synergistic fusion enabling better direction of thought. We would eliminate the stereotype

My mind buzzes when I read stuff like this. It tunes it out naturally.

Yes I am sure it does. . Its not maths or pseudo-maths Its just that 1 represents The ONE, truth, unity and 2 represents split, polarity etc .........its a picture

I remember you, as Tumbleman, from a while ago. You came here with the same OS 012 stuff, and back then it hardly made sense. Not that what you're saying is complicated. It just reads like you're nuts.

I am not Tumbleman. He missed the point

When I force myself to read statements like this, tuning out my buzzing brain, what I get out of it is essentially nothing. You just try to create systems, which makes little sense, because reality can be grasped as a system. Everything already has its category, but you want to create more cateogories with numbers. 1=truth, 2=split/disunity....this makes no sense. Why it makes no sense...because there's no reason to give these things numbers!

I am not trying to create a system ...MY posts are asking for help in creating not a system but a wayto spread GOD to those who really need GOD . God to me is 1.and when you meet someone who shakes with fear of life itself there must be a way of showing that person that nothing comes before1, nothing transcends Oneness, that Oneness is Benign so nothing negative has any impact . Such a person must also recognise that 2 ie duality/split/polarity/Yes-No is only a split that needs to be healed to return to 1[/quote]

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:18 am

I'm just re-reaqding DQ's piffle here

When it comes to spirituality, the differences are acute. The average man is far closer to wisdom than even the most gifted of women. The understanding of ultimate reality is no small matter. To attain it requires the masculine attributes of absolute purpose, of courage and rationality, of single-minded persistence, constancy under pressure, and a sense of destiny. I assure you that not one aspect of femininity is even remotely suited to the task.

The understanding of reality requires the masculine attributes of absolute purpose, of courage and rationality, of single-minded persistence, constancy under pressure, and a sense of destiny.Oh really ....those characteristics lead to a Hitler!!!

You missed out compassion, forebearance, the abilty to suffer a Mother's love and understanding for a start These complement a woman's already well documented characteristics of absolute purpose amily courage (you try childbirth) constancy under pressure (2 children raised without too much ado) and destiny (the beloved Grandmother)

This is what reality is all about and you, my friend miss the point. There are people out there that need something. Stop looking for the ultimate reality andstart helping people vreate a new reality
It was the Buddha who said "With our thoughts we make this world........Global Reality changes as our global thoughts change

The most noticeable quality of woman is her complete lack of feeling for what is ultimate. Mention the word "Truth" to a woman and she will simply stare at you as if you were an alien from another planet. Her feminine upbringing has long ago closed her mind to such a possibility. Her truths pertain solely to the world of emotions. If she were fortunate enough ever to catch a glimpse of what it means to be truthful, she would immediately brand it the most inhuman of all things. And she would be right.
If one is going to transcend all things, then one must renounce all things. This is easy enough to understand; the difficulty lies in actually doing it. It requires a tremendous faith in reason to be able to renounce everything in the world - including things like love and happiness and security - purely for an abstract principle such as truth. Can you honestly conceive of a woman living for truth? She is completely oblivious to even the very notion of truth, let alone the importance of pursuing it.

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:25 am

No wait I am wrong the whole essay DQ has written called Woman is not a sexist insult..........It is a challenge
My apologies DQ

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:32 am

Only if you get to know us...we do not need to be challenged!!

Read the stories of Ruth and Of Esther, of Judith and of Sarah, Of Rachel and Rebekah and see where you are going wrong
Yes they are stories but if you read about the Buddha, at least balance your education

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:27 am

Emma,

We are all enlightened but for some it only lasts seconds. For others days and for a few years . It is relatively easy to be enlightened but hard to keep it up. The moment I said I was enlightened I lost my enlightenment, but soon regained it when I checked that I was not speaking from ego . We lose enlightenment not only thro ego but also when we doubt ourselves or suffer fear etc

That is not something I'd call enlightenment.

I do not think this messes with people's minds either, because my intent is pure (I have checked this) I am not here to inflate my ego, I have none, I am just the sum of my thoughts and I cultivate benign thoughts whenever I can.....

You have no ego, yet you did when you said you were enlightened. Also when you feel the need to reply to my posts, to back up your claims.

I am nice but I want to know why members such as you seem to focus on my perceived faults rather than contributing to my two posts

You are right. I'm very guilty of focusing on faults. I'd blame it on this forum, but that wouldn't really take care of the problem, would it? I need to work on becoming more positive and not argumentative. Thanks for being straightforward about this instead of simply becoming defensive and argumentative yourself.

That shows some potential for wisdom in you, in my opinion.

Yes I am sure it does. . Its not maths or pseudo-maths Its just that 1 represents The ONE, truth, unity and 2 represents split, polarity etc .........its a picture

I just don't get why you use it.

I am not Tumbleman. He missed the point

What's the point?

I am not trying to create a system ...MY posts are asking for help in creating not a system but a wayto spread GOD to those who really need GOD . God to me is 1.and when you meet someone who shakes with fear of life itself there must be a way of showing that person that nothing comes before1, nothing transcends Oneness, that Oneness is Benign so nothing negative has any impact . Such a person must also recognise that 2 ie duality/split/polarity/Yes-No is only a split that needs to be healed to return to 1

Why do you call the way things are - "God"? I don't want to sit here and keep telling you that none of this makes sense to me. I wish things like this made sense.

But I'm a very realistic person. I don't get caught up in passionate spiritual stuff. Even the name of God brings some people to a crazy state of mind...like it triggers something in them that makes them start acting stupid.

I don't see why people don't just live out their lives without this. Walk down the street, and not think of imaginary things. Drive a car. Read a book. Watch tv. This is all stuff that's actually happening. Why do people try to avoid this, and take on beliefs about higher things (which may or may not exist)?

emma · Post by **emma** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:38 pm

I don't see why people don't just live out their lives without this. Walk down the street, and not think of imaginary things. Drive a car. Read a book. Watch tv. This is all stuff that's actually happening. Why do people try to avoid this, and take on beliefs about higher things (which may or may not exist)?

Because many need help....Reading a bok, watching TV does not help them....They have a hole in their lives.........Showing them that the world is Benign. that God is Benign will help many. Destroying old religious/sexual/class differences is what it is about...............But the fact you have to ask shows me that I am on the wrong forum

As for enlightenment of course I am right....We reach it, we lose it

In the words of Lao-tse
"Return to the Simple"..........ie when enlightenment is lost return to that which is simple so as to be able to re-gain it...
Enlightenment is a temporary state.........In worlds to come when humankind naturally improves itself enlightenment will become more permanent....but a moment of anger/ego returns one to the beginning again

Oh yes we will all get there...but it will take people who can discuss and reason to help the others and when you come across one who cannot see past their own failings it will help them to teach them of a Benign 1/GOD/Force above all others

Wild Fox Zen · Post by **Wild Fox Zen** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 7:27 pm

Emma: I believe you when you say you're enlightened, but you're speaking in a language that evokes hostility and resistance in the people here.

I think your approach is off; you want a cooperative effort, but no one here is going to cooperate with someone that isn't speaking a language that resonates with them; they won't comprimise the words they think with, which is why a lot of the same words get repeated here (truth, logic, masculinity, wisdom, enlightenment.) I guess it comes down to marketing -- who wants a truth that doesn't appeal to their aesthetics?

Besides that, few people here are interested in cooperation -- period -- this whole board is based on challenge and defeating eachother (watch someone italicize this statement and tell me how wrong I am.) Tumbleman got it right, because he knew that the best way to get his point across on this forum was to mix it up, and while many people were still resistant to his ideas, he garnered a lot of genuine interest.

emma · Post by **emma** » Wed Sep 06, 2006 4:06 am

Emma: I believe you when you say you're enlightened, but you're speaking in a language that evokes hostility and resistance in the people here.

Tumbleman got it right, because he knew that the best way to get his point across on this forum was to mix it up, and while many people were still resistant to his ideas, he garnered a lot of genuine interest.

...and you think I am not mixing it up right?

BJMcGilly · Post by **BJMcGilly** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 11:58 am

Scott, Emma (lord of death?);

What do you two think of expedient means?

Tharan · Post by **Tharan** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:36 pm

Wild Fox Zen wrote,

Besides that, few people here are interested in cooperation -- period -- this whole board is based on challenge and defeating eachother (watch someone italicize this statement and tell me how wrong I am.) Tumbleman got it right, because he knew that the best way to get his point across on this forum was to mix it up, and while many people were still resistant to his ideas, he garnered a lot of genuine interest.

I'll cooperate. Cooperate at what?

Tumbleman got "it" wrong, but he enjoyed mixing it up. That is why I liked him. Also, I obviously defeated him which is my true desire.

frank · Post by **frank** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:16 pm

DQ's made it abundantly clear that women cannot reach enlightenment at all, short of being reborn as men.

He read that in a book or someone told him that.

frank