GENIUS FORUMS

stuff that stinks...and Buddha is a shit stick:

In medieval China a stick was used as we now use toilet roll and Ummon was telling his questioner in the plainest possible terms that he could wipe his ass with Buddha, or at least his ideas of Buddha.

Subverting the sacred is a standard tactic in the Zen teacher's armory. It is used to shock the pious into re-examining their fundamental assumptions so as not to commit the real sacrilege of defending their own opinions as absolute truth.

(The Buddhist Channel)

Bubble pop. <POP>

Dejavu, you remind me of the wizard of Oz.

Subverting the sacred is a standard tactic in the Zen teacher's armory. It is used to shock the pious into re-examining their fundamental assumptions so as not to commit the real sacrilege of defending their own opinions as absolute truth.

Therefore, according to these wise Buddhists, the first sage committed sacrilege; all his followers mouthed his ideas and were far wiser than he.

.

Yeah, pretty much a joke, like the zen master authorization system, where a master appoints a student to become a zen master;

Like the buddy system in The Simpsons, two kids always go together, if one is lost, the other one will say so; but if they are both lost, nobody will notice, so is the Zen master system when a blind master appoints a blind student making them both fall into a pit. It is no use being authorized by another person, you have to know it yourself. Ultimately no use worrying about what other people think, since you are the final authority for truth.

if somebody tells you you know truth, do you wonder;

1. do i really? which truth? the 'one' Truth?
or

2. fair enough, you're a zen master, i guess im a zen master too if you say so.

Pye wrote:

I wouldn't be seeing any women in any of these seminars if they thought those were the only two "states" that concerned them. It is exactly the grounding of higher work in the world that concerns them and most of what we do is provide practical network for their movement - for substance outside of male-definition.

Sue H wrote: The herd exists because of “practical” networking. I’m thinking that your networking is to do with herdish things such as peace, compassion and bringing happiness to others. But I’d be interested if the focus of these women was on suppling the backing needed for the publication of Quinn’s “Exposition”.

I wasnt aware that such funding was needed-- what would it cost $

David Quinn wrote:

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.

-

hahahaha-lol.......Emerging, maybe.
But setting...(lol)... this world on....(lol).......fire???????
hahaha..........not a chance!

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.

If you believe DQ is merely deluding himself then why dont you just come out and say so.
You're not impressing anyone by hiding behind vague insinuation, DR.

Jehu wrote:It is evident that there are significant differences in both the physiological and psychological makeup of the male and female, some of which are evolutionary, and other purely cultural, nevertheless, both sexes are fully endowed with all of the fundamental elements that comprise a ‘human being’ – and to be enlightened is simply to be an ‘authentic’ human being. Human beings, like all beings (relative entities), have a function, that is to say, a mode of activity whereby they fulfil their purpose; and this purpose is to do whatever they can, as far as is possible, to reduce the suffering of other sentient beings. In other words, as far as a person fulfils this purpose in their everyday lives, to that extent is that person enlightened – be they male or female.

Jehu, did you ever respond to Alex's request for clarification?

Did you find DQ's response at all enlightening?

I am asking in the spirit of the purpose of this forum.

.


-Jehu earlier-
It is evident that there are significant differences in both the physiological and psychological makeup of the male and female, some of which are evolutionary, and other purely cultural, nevertheless, both sexes are fully endowed with all of the fundamental elements that comprise a ‘human being’ – and to be enlightened is simply to be an ‘authentic’ human being. Human beings, like all beings (relative entities), have a function, that is to say, a mode of activity whereby they fulfil their purpose; and this purpose is to do whatever they can, as far as is possible, to reduce the suffering of other sentient beings. In other words, as far as a person fulfils this purpose in their everyday lives, to that extent is that person enlightened – be they male or female.

-Foreigner demands-
Jehu, did you ever respond to Alex's request for clarification?

-tomas interjects-
Are you referring to:

1. Alex Jacob (the macaw)?
2. Talking Ass?
3. Alex?

Or, the latest re-manifestation of "Alex" .. as Talking Ass. Who would you suggest Jehu respond to?

Apparently, one is now permitted to register under several aliases and use them interchangeably on no moments notice.

Would the real Alex please appear? No split personalities, please. I know, the Christians have three gods (father, son, holy spirit) so you as a Jew, should be entitled to three memberships here on Genius Forums. It's only fair considering that Jews are persecuted the world over. Just like those Poor Tibetens are. Probably the female race too as they have to bear the fruit of the womb, human offspring. Any other downtrodden will have to wait in line.


-More Foreigner demands-
Did you find DQ's response at all enlightening?

-tomas-
David Quinn is continuing to write his latest book. He hasn't time to be bothered with such minor inherencies such as these.


-Foreigner's mea culpa-
I am asking in the spirit of the purpose of this forum.

-tomas-
Now, you Foreigner. You are the come-and-go disappearing act. Where were you when Jesus had a talk with Kelly Jones regarding Remote Viewing?

PS - Noah's Ark returns in 2012.

Re: On David Quinns' WOMAN EXPOSITION....
by Alex T. Jacob on Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:54 pm

back on page 6

David Quinn wrote:Woman has no positive qualities, so there is nothing to rail against in that regard. Everything that a woman can do (with the exception of giving birth and the like), a man can do a thousand times better, simply because his mind is more focused and direct. That is why even within traditional feminine fields, such as cooking and fashion design, men are the leading figures.

Diebert described it best with his thread about femininity, with quotes alluding to feminine consciousness's lack of capacity, its affinity with madness, its tendency towards nothingness. It is hard to be positive about such a lifeless phenomenon, particularly if your goal in life is full understanding and consciousness of enlightened reality, and particularly if you live in a society that is in total denial about the reality of woman.

It is this denial, and its countless consequences, that I rail against. Women themselves are secondary to the issue.

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. In other words, ignorant masculinity is a thing restricted, while the feminine is simply nothingness.

-

Clearly exempt from the "men have more muscle mass" excuse, consider the case of Ms Danica Patrick, possibly the only woman who happily and skillfully competes with the "big boys" at 200 mph professional auto racing; last i noticed (may have been Nascar) she had come in essentially last, something like 35th in a field of 36 or so drivers (not everyone finished).

However, in the weeks preceding the race, there was all kinds of gossip and joking, Danica taking it all in stride with that lovely smile, as she rakes in the big bucks, no less, with her hyped up television endorsements of certain racing products and companies.

When questioned about all the hoopla she responded as-- Oh i dont pay any attention to all that chattering about being the only female on the track and about always loosing to the boys et all, Im a racecar driver and thats all that matters to me-- being out there and driving.
That's my pleasure!

lol
Indeed spoken like a woman.

And here, precisely, is the problem, and the difference, not in the muscles but in the attitude.
Danica well, she goes to participate;
but for the men in Ferrari's and Porsche's, nothing short of winning will do.