On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:Kunga,

Tell me what enlightenment is in one paragraph.

If you think you know...you don't. i typed out a paragraph...but then realized i really don't know.

What i typed was related to this : When you realize the non-dual nature of everything...it's emptiness . (that everything is connected and dependant on everything else for it's existence.)

The truth is a paradox. (Lao Tzu)
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Kunga,

Tell me how you got from "When you realize the non-dual nature of everything...it's emptiness . (that everything is connected and dependant on everything else for it's existence" to "i really don't know." Please tell me something more detailed than that you just "realized" that you don't know.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Animus »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Assuming that by "you" above, you mean "biological females" then what you are saying is only true to females, and entirely misses the advantage that David gives to biological females in his Woman essay - though I don't know whether to call it an unfair advantage considering that biological men do have a head start to enlightenment, whether it is a biological head start or a cultural advantage due to pervasive sociological differences in how males and females are treated from the time of birth.

Yes, the angrier one gets, the more of Quinn's femininity is highlighted, but that is rather obvious. What is more subtle is that the more smug that biological males feel on reading this material, the more feminine he actually is - but smugness is not a red flag waving like anger or pain is. A hurt or angry female will be more prodded to think about it in different ways until she understands it than a man is prodded by a seeming ego boost - which is what an unconscious male could get from Quinn's essay on Woman.
I can see that as a real possibility. There are many male types who would get a major ego boost out of something like Quinn's Exposition. I don't find myself entirely in agreement with it myself, but for the purposes of this thread I was simply discussing Exposition. My own personal view isn't too far off, and I think just rephrases a lot of it in as neutral terms as I can get, which may or may not be as effective. Its hard to say about these things.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Kunga,

Tell me how you got from "When you realize the non-dual nature of everything...it's emptiness . (that everything is connected and dependant on everything else for it's existence" to "i really don't know." Please tell me something more detailed than that you just "realized" that you don't know.

Because that's what i THINK it is...i'm not sure. It just makes perfect sense to me. But again, i don't think i'm Enlightened. That's exactly where i am right now. If i was truly Enlightened i would be clarivoyant,telepathic,be able to walk on water, walk through walls, speed walk, know everything,(i would be able to recall my past lives too), able to cut up my body and give it to others in need without being harmed,if i was Enlightened, i would know that too. But i'm not. Enlightened people know what to say and how to say it effectively as to benifit all beings. All i'm capable of doing is arrogantly showing ya'll how deluded i am.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Carl G »

Kunga wrote: If i was truly Enlightened i would be clarivoyant,telepathic,be able to walk on water, walk through walls, speed walk, know everything,(i would be able to recall my past lives too), able to cut up my body and give it to others in need without being harmed,if i was Enlightened, i would know that too. . . Enlightened people know what to say and how to say it effectively as to benifit all beings.
There's your paragraph of definition, Dan.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by David Quinn »

A common experience when listening to a woman:
Kunga wrote:If you think you know [enlightenment] ...you don't.
Kunga wrote: if i was Enlightened, i would know that too.
The head suddenly starts spinning .....

Kunga wrote:but then realized i really don't know.
Ah, it's stop spinning now.

Kunga wrote: If i was truly Enlightened i would be clarivoyant,telepathic,be able to walk on water, walk through walls, speed walk, know everything,(i would be able to recall my past lives too), able to cut up my body and give it to others in need without being harmed,
Hold on, it's spinning again .....

-
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

In this Sutta Buddha speaks of hundreds of his female discipes attaining Enlightenment & talks about the super-normal powers...


Maha-Vacchagotta Sutta

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ta-e1.html



David...are you Enlightened ?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by David Quinn »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
David Quinn wrote:This relates to the point I make about how "femininity" and "unconsciousness" shouldn't be regarded as equivalent terms. A feminine person is unconscious in an entirely different way to that of the ignorant masculine person. The latter is unconscious because of fears, emotional attachments and mental blocks, while the former's unconsciousness derives from an inherent lack of capacity.
Just to be absolutely clear for the readers, especially because of your recent extended sabbatical, you do not mean that masculinity is only to be found in biological males just as femininity is not necessarily tied to only biological females - though the propensity for these characteristics is tied to the gender-associated terms, right?
That's right. If a woman can somehow pull against the drag of her own feminine nothingness and start to think deeply in a sustained, consistent manner such that she begins to inwardly connect with the ultimate truth directly and consciously - leaving all the gurus, books, support groups, women's networks, social rewards and emotional games far behind - she can finally say in truth that she has a masculine consciousness.

The same applies to men, of course. The only real difference is that men tend to have certain genetic and psychological advantages, due to the way our species has evolved.

But I would never rule out the possibility of an extraordinary woman emerging and setting the world on fire.

-
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote: to think deeply in a sustained, consistent manner such that she begins to inwardly connect with the ultimate truth directly and consciously - leaving all the gurus, books, support groups, women's networks, social rewards and emotional games far behind - she can finally say in truth that she has a masculine consciousness.

Long before i started reading and had a teacher, i thought deeply and consistently ...in Buddhism a teacher is sometimes essential (especially in the Vajrayana). Not only that, but probably in other lifetimes i studied and meditated and searched for the truth....and it doesn't matter what your doing in life, if your heart is set on knowing the truth, you will succeed...nothing will get in your way, and everything can be part of it.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Kunga wrote:Long before i started reading and had a teacher, i thought deeply and consistently
You call this consistent?
Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Kunga,

Tell me what enlightenment is in one paragraph.

If you think you know...you don't. i typed out a paragraph...but then realized i really don't know.

What i typed was related to this : When you realize the non-dual nature of everything...it's emptiness . (that everything is connected and dependant on everything else for it's existence.)
Kunga wrote:If i was truly Enlightened i would be clarivoyant,telepathic,be able to walk on water, walk through walls, speed walk, know everything,(i would be able to recall my past lives too), able to cut up my body and give it to others in need without being harmed
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:You call this consistent?
Consistently inconsistent...lol

i've degenerated through the years...i said long before i had a teacher don't forget :)
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by David Quinn »

Kunga wrote:In this Sutta Buddha speaks of hundreds of his female discipes attaining Enlightenment & talks about the super-normal powers...


Maha-Vacchagotta Sutta

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ta-e1.html
The sutta is obviously fraudulent. Many of them are. Uninspired, buddhism-by-numbers, written by people who imitate the Buddha without having any real understanding.

Anyone who says they are churning out hundreds of enlightened disciples, male or female, is having you on. It's pure snake-oil stuff. In reality, people who become enlightened are extremely rare. Personally, I am aware of only a couple of dozen or so in all of recorded history who have reached enlightenment, with only a few from Buddhism.

As for "supernatural powers", the Buddha warned his followers on numerous occasions not to pursue them. Not only is it a distraction from the all-important task of becoming enlightened, but the ego can easily get boosted and unbalanced by such an increase of its powers, often to the point of no return.

"First the Kingdom of God", as Jesus advised. First get rid of your delusions and become conscious of reality. Then you can decide what is the wise thing to do.

David...are you Enlightened ?
What do you think?

-
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Kunga,

Tell me how you got from "When you realize the non-dual nature of everything...it's emptiness . (that everything is connected and dependant on everything else for it's existence" to "i really don't know." Please tell me something more detailed than that you just "realized" that you don't know.

Because that's what i THINK it is...i'm not sure. It just makes perfect sense to me. But again, i don't think i'm Enlightened. That's exactly where i am right now. If i was truly Enlightened i would be clarivoyant,telepathic,be able to walk on water, walk through walls, speed walk, know everything,(i would be able to recall my past lives too), able to cut up my body and give it to others in need without being harmed,if i was Enlightened, i would know that too. But i'm not. Enlightened people know what to say and how to say it effectively as to benifit all beings. All i'm capable of doing is arrogantly showing ya'll how deluded i am.
Oh, you didn't have to have worked so hard to demonstrate that :) This post is more than enough in and of itself. There is officially no further reason to take anything you say seriously. I suggest you spend more time working on those delusions rather than trying to argue with people.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote:What do you think?

i don't know. i asked you the question, you seem to know a lot, don't you know whether your Enlightened or not ?

Buddha admitted he was Enlightened .
Can you admit that ?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Dan Rowden »

One necessarily knows if enlightenment is present - if it really is. That is basically true of necessity and definition. However, it is easy enough to be deluded about it, as many people have been.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:Oh, you didn't have to have worked so hard to demonstrate that :) This post is more than enough in and of itself. There is officially no further reason to take anything you say seriously. I suggest you spend more time working on those delusions rather than trying to argue with people.
i'm not arguing, i'm trying to decipher the truth ...you call it arguing because i'm a female, if i was a man you would think i was debating....i am passionate about getting to the bottom of things. i know i've shaken you guys up a lot because of my inquisitiveness. i sense there is a power struggle here....lol

at least i can admit i'm not Enlightened.
Last edited by Kunga on Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:One necessarily knows if enlightenment is present - if it really is. That is basically true of necessity and definition. However, it is easy enough to be deluded about it, as many people have been.

Just a simple yes or no .

This question was for David.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Oh, you didn't have to have worked so hard to demonstrate that :) This post is more than enough in and of itself. There is officially no further reason to take anything you say seriously. I suggest you spend more time working on those delusions rather than trying to argue with people.
i'm not arguing, i'm trying to decipher the truth ...you call it arguing because i'm a female, if i was a man you would think i was debating....i am passionate about getting to the bottom of things. i know i've shaken you guys up a lot because of my inquisitiveness. i sense there is a power struggle here....lol
See, there you go, flashing your tits! How predictable. I would have said you were "arguing" whatever your gender. Arguing/debating - same same. Hell, I didn't even know till a couple of days ago that you were female.

Your posts have generally not been about "inquisitiveness" at all. Either that or you have a really strange way of expressing such a thing.
at least i can admit i'm not Enlightened.
I fail to see any real significance in that.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kunga wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:One necessarily knows if enlightenment is present - if it really is. That is basically true of necessity and definition. However, it is easy enough to be deluded about it, as many people have been.

Just a simple yes or no .

This question was for David.
The question does not entail a simple yes or no. That's the whole point. A simple "yes" would not really be a fully accurate answer.

Better, really, to ask is he has experienced enlightenment. That he could probably give a proper, simple, "yes" answer to.


I recommend this video: What is Enlightenment?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by David Quinn »

Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What do you think?
i don't know. i asked you the question, you seem to know a lot, don't you know whether your Enlightened or not ?

Buddha admitted he was Enlightened .
Can you admit that ?
The problem is, if I admit that I am, then it will be said that I am arrogant and delusional. Some people will even quote the popular mantra that "the truly enlightened would never say that they are enlightened".

And if I say that I'm not, then people will rightly say that I'm not in a position to speak authoritatively on the subject of enlightenment.

I've answered yes to this question many times in the past, but nowadays I'd rather just speak the truth with conviction and authority and let people make up their own minds.

-
User avatar
Loki
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 am

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Loki »

David Quinn wrote: As for "supernatural powers", the Buddha warned his followers on numerous occasions not to pursue them. Not only is it a distraction from the all-important task of becoming enlightened, but the ego can easily get boosted and unbalanced by such an increase of its powers, often to the point of no return.
How do you know this David? Have you ever gotten carried away with supernatural powers? If not, have you ever had reason to believe other people had such powers?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

David Quinn wrote:
Kunga wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What do you think?
i don't know. i asked you the question, you seem to know a lot, don't you know whether your Enlightened or not ?

Buddha admitted he was Enlightened .
Can you admit that ?
The problem is, if I admit that I am, then it will be said that I am arrogant and delusional. Some people will even quote the popular mantra that "the truly enlightened would never say that they are enlightened".

And if I say that I'm not, then people will rightly say that I'm not in a position to speak authoritatively on the subject of enlightenment.

I've answered yes to this question many times in the past, but nowadays I'd rather just speak the truth with conviction and authority and let people make up their own minds.

-



Thankyou. it's nice to see someone being humble around here for once.



_/\_
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:Arguing/debating - same same. Hell, I didn't even know till a couple of days ago that you were female.
This is a discussion form...shit happens right ? Really tho, i know i get defensive, and the TRUTH doesn't need to be defended, it can stand on it's own....but i see so many LIES that i feel the TRUTH needs to be exposed....and that's what i'm trying to do...find the truth hidden under all the lies. i'll admit if i'm delusional....and i probably really don't understand Davids essay on WOMAN ...but i'm REALLY trying to....HONESTLY. But it's really hard when your emotions get in the way, and he intensionally pushes the buttons here, triggering off an emotional response. The emotional response of a man that falls for this philosophy is probebly equal to a woman's, only the woman experiences anger and the man experiences happiness.

You didn't know i was female ???????? am i suppose to take that as a compliment ? LOL
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Dan Rowden »

I can accept the sincerity of your motives up to a point - that point being where you actually let your emotions make you feel you have an understanding that you really don't, which causes you to argue without cause or real substance. That's a trap we all have to watch out for.

When we get upset over concepts, the first thing we should really do is ask why we have become upset, rather than take our response as some sort of sign that there's something automatically wrong with the concepts in question. Emotion is never an argument; it's always just a response.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....

Post by Kunga »

Dan Rowden wrote:I can accept the sincerity of your motives up to a point - that point being where you actually let your emotions make you feel you have an understanding that you really don't, which causes you to argue without cause or real substance. That's a trap we all have to watch out for.

When we get upset over concepts, the first thing we should really do is ask why we have become upset, rather than take our response as some sort of sign that there's something automatically wrong with the concepts in question. Emotion is never an argument; it's always just a response.

yes.......but the essay on WOMAN is riddled with Davids emotions and conceptions of what a woman is or is not. Yes, he admitted it wasn't a scientific theory....but it was HIS observation and assetment therefore NOT scientific or proven by facts . Therefore when a deluded person such as myself reads it, anger arises. What was the point in pointing out anything in this essay if it was written for only those that would understand, because they had a higher intelligence ?

Someone with a higher intelligence would automatically know all these things and wouldn't need to be educated . So he wrote it to educate the uneducated delusional people. But what it only amounts to be is brainwashing. Either that, or it's ONLY FOR MEN THAT NEED TO DESTROY THEIR LOVE FOR WOMAN AND ALL THEIR DESIRES FOR WOMAN SO THEY CAN GO ON TO PERSUE THE HOLY LIFE. AND FOR WOMEN TO SERIOUSLY DO IT TOO, IF THEY HAVE THE BALLS. LOL
Locked