Women as emotional being :myth ?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

Dan Rowden wrote: Just because something is natural it doesn't follow that it's desirable. Such judgements always arise in a value context. If one values truth (and therefore devalues delusion) the ego becomes undesirable because it arises from a place of false ideas about the self.
I guess we're back to perspective, natural behavior to someone deluded by ego is completely different than the natural behavior of someone free of ego, and all the varying degrees in between.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cathy: Rebirth is different from Birth, rebirth is clinging to the old, unchangeable, fixed, birth is potential for something completely new. Obviously I don't equate inhaling and exhaling with ego, otherwise the Buddha or anyone else would never be able to go beyond ego. In fact the more I experience the true wonder of this world, the more I see the destiny of man as conscious stewards of life, embodying a mutually symbiotic relationship with environment. I think that nature (animals and plants) provide a blueprint for evolution and if humanity can become a fully conscious, flexible, changeable partner in this process the potential is truly incredible.
The Buddha was clear as to his path of enlightenment, as was Jesus clear as to his way of ascension, and concepts such as wonder and incredible and flexible and partner were not markers on either path. The Buddha's vision as was Jesus' vision was one of cessation of all conditions, the final condition or "modicom of disturbance" as the Buddha calls it being that of the physical body itself. Look at the phrase you used - "I think". Is this not the eternal, wearying utterance of what you call the ego?

From the Cula-sunnata Sutta, on Release:
"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed."
From the Gospel of John:
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The teachings of Jesus and the Buddha are hard just because they are thought-cessation-based, allowing for no projection of the mind into a concept of a "future" for the body. This is why final release does not happen until physical death: thought is used only to sustain the final condition of life, of the body, the thinking of eating, drinking, clothing, cleansing. By resting in the breath, all that is needed to be done, is done. What comes beyond the extinguishing of breath, no one knows. The true death of what you call the ego. :-)
Cathy: I guess we're back to perspective, natural behavior to someone deluded by ego is completely different than the natural behavior of someone free of ego, and all the varying degrees in between.
Natural behaviour free of ego: please provide an example of such behaviour.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

Clearly I disagree. If you want to put all your eggs into the basket of death go ahead, but I don't understand why you would choose to put off what can be achieved here and now. I mean you simply have to drop the belief that death is some kind of fix, why is it necessary to drag around, if it's true; belief won't affect it and if it's false you just wasted a whole life.

Natural behavior after ego:
free of suffering, able to act rationally in the face of disaster
mind that is flexible, not rigidly defending positions merely to be right
see the perfection of life~Reality
able to embrace the whole spectrum
eternal (ushering in an age where environment is realized as self ~ Ego would rather destroy the world rather than itself)
just a few, but a society based on egolessness would be completely different than we have now and it is the future
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Kunga »

movingalways wrote: Natural behaviour free of ego:
,
Breathing
Yawning
Sneezing
Wheezing
Coughing
Farting
Etc.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

Ultimately behavior would be fluid and adaptive changing to accommodate changes in the environment and changing to cause change as more is learned about reality when studied as a whole, free of unconscious desires, the word natural may not even exist because un-natural as Supermegaultragenius pointed out doesn't exist. Societies may be geographically organized, diversity would be embraced, escapism and self destruction would virtually vanish, stress based disease would be a thing of the past, space exploration would be a world effort, any laws would be based on practicalities of environment rather than emotional ideals of right versus wrong. Profit for profit's sake would be another thing of the past, the class system would disappear.
User avatar
Tomas
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Tomas »

Cathy Preston wrote:Ultimately behavior would be fluid and adaptive changing to accommodate changes in the environment and changing to cause change as more is learned about reality when studied as a whole, free of unconscious desires, the word natural may not even exist because un-natural as Supermegaultragenius pointed out doesn't exist. Societies may be geographically organized, diversity would be embraced, escapism and self destruction would virtually vanish, stress based disease would be a thing of the past, space exploration would be a world effort, any laws would be based on practicalities of environment rather than emotional ideals of right versus wrong. Profit for profit's sake would be another thing of the past, the class system would disappear.
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if we can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world

You, you may say
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon - Imagine
(Live '72) Madison Square Garden >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJCR8mCk4bA

.
Don't run to your death
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cathy Preston wrote:Clearly I disagree. If you want to put all your eggs into the basket of death go ahead, but I don't understand why you would choose to put off what can be achieved here and now. I mean you simply have to drop the belief that death is some kind of fix, why is it necessary to drag around, if it's true; belief won't affect it and if it's false you just wasted a whole life.

Natural behavior after ego:
free of suffering, able to act rationally in the face of disaster
mind that is flexible, not rigidly defending positions merely to be right
see the perfection of life~Reality
able to embrace the whole spectrum
eternal (ushering in an age where environment is realized as self ~ Ego would rather destroy the world rather than itself)
just a few, but a society based on egolessness would be completely different than we have now and it is the future
And how long would this rational society exist before one became weary of its existence? 100 years? 1000 years? When one understands the nature of consciousness, they understand that every "age" or "eon" is temporary. Emotionalism is temporary, rationalism is temporary, spiritual bliss is temporary, every realm is impermanent and ever-changing.

The words of the Buddha, from the Pali Canon:

"And what, monks is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention. This is called name. The four great elements (earth, water, fire, air) and the form dependent on the four great elements. This is called form."

The words of the Buddha, from the Sutta Nipata:

[Ajita]...name & form, dear sir:
Tell me, when asked this,
where are they brought to a halt?
[The Buddha:]
This question you've asked, Ajita,
I'll answer it for you —
where name & form
are brought to a halt
without trace:
With the cessation of consciousness
they're brought
to a halt.

Rational thought is conscious thought [rational consciousness]. Rational thought is name-&-form. Rational thought is mind-&-matter. Rational thought is clearer and wiser than emotional thought, this is true, but rational thought is not the attainment of nibbana, which is the cessation of name-&-form, every manifestation of name-&form. The goal of meditation, enlightenment, is not to produce a "better" realm of consciousness but to end the recycling of rebirth into all conscious realms, hellish and heavenly. This can only be attained while one is in the conscious, awake human realm where one is aware of the duality of heaven "good" and hell "evil". Here one has the capacity to neutralize or reconcile the opposites, to bring to a halt the suffering caused by one's desire for either, then, to bring to a halt, the suffering caused by one's awareness of both.

The Buddha does not say what "happens" when consciousness is brought to a halt because consciousness is needed to say.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Kunga wrote:
movingalways wrote: Natural behaviour free of ego:
,
Breathing
Yawning
Sneezing
Wheezing
Coughing
Farting
Etc.
I was quoting Cathy when I used that phrase. :-)

This is the reality of the six sense realm laid bare, regardless if it is an emotional realm or a rational one. This is nibbana?
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

LOL whats wrong with any of those behaviors?

Laozi dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Buddha dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Jesus dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Cathy will be dead, dust to dust, Universe continues

Do you notice a pattern here? Like a fly on the ass of a yak I am nothing. Now I suddenly realize the fly(me) and the yak are not two things they are one thing is it rational for the fly (me) to think it's the center of the universe?
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Beingof1 »

Cathy Preston wrote:LOL whats wrong with any of those behaviors?

Laozi dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Buddha dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Jesus dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Cathy will be dead, dust to dust, Universe continues

Do you notice a pattern here? Like a fly on the ass of a yak I am nothing. Now I suddenly realize the fly(me) and the yak are not two things they are one thing is it rational for the fly (me) to think it's the center of the universe?
If the fly(you) and the yak are one thing - you are the center of the universe. How could it be otherwise?

If there is only one thing and not two, how many centers are there?
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

I knew someone would respond this way, but this is like saying the fly caused the yak, which is clearly not true. It appears as if the fly is the center of the universe simply because that is it's point of awareness, but it's not the actual center. Freeing yourself from all appearances of mind, then when fly and yak are realized as one, perspective moves freely from fly to yak, yak to fly. You are neither the fly nor the yak, the whole is.

When we're deluded there's a world to escape. When we're aware there's nothing to escape.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Cathy Preston wrote:LOL whats wrong with any of those behaviors?

Laozi dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Buddha dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Jesus dead, dust to dust, Universe continues
Cathy will be dead, dust to dust, Universe continues

Do you notice a pattern here? Like a fly on the ass of a yak I am nothing. Now I suddenly realize the fly(me) and the yak are not two things they are one thing is it rational for the fly (me) to think it's the center of the universe?
Cathy, you ignored the sutta I place forward about the cessation of consciousness as being the way to attain nibbana. Dust is consciousness of the earth. Therefore, in order to attain nibbana, to be completely released from the wheel of rebirth, one must end their consciousness of dust. It is not a moral judgement to say this, it is the law of the continuum of causality or the law of the Spirit of life.

Yes, "Universe" continues when one's conciousness of form is ended. "You" as caused Intent or Tendency of "Universe" also continues when your consciousness of form is ended. If you are happy at this moment with your consciousness of the form of dust, then you are happy, no problem, but if you are going to quote the teachings of the Buddha, this view of a continuing universe of dust to dust as being the only realm of existence is not the correct view of the Buddha. Or of the Christ, for that matter.

I suggest to you that if you want to understand the Tipitaka and the NT scriptures from the perspective of no beginning and no ending [beyond the turning wheel of dust to dust, rebirth into a body] that you replace the concept of "Universe" with that of "Infinity." "Universe", for me anyway, tends to call forth images [forms] of meteors, planets and stars, images of dust, whereas "Infinity" arouses no image at all.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

movingalways wrote:"You" as caused Intent or Tendency of "Universe" also continues when your consciousness of form is ended
Consciousness of form is ended by simply not being taken in by the illusion(that things inherently exist) of form. Consciousness of Form is consciousness still deluded by appearances.
Beingof1
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:10 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Beingof1 »

Cathy Preston wrote:I knew someone would respond this way, but this is like saying the fly caused the yak, which is clearly not true. It appears as if the fly is the center of the universe simply because that is it's point of awareness, but it's not the actual center.
Have you ever been someplace you were not there?

Can you remember a time you were not?
Freeing yourself from all appearances of mind, then when fly and yak are realized as one, perspective moves freely from fly to yak, yak to fly. You are neither the fly nor the yak, the whole is.

When we're deluded there's a world to escape. When we're aware there's nothing to escape.
You cannot escape your experience. You can deny your experience but you cannot escape it.
Consciousness of form is ended by simply not being taken in by the illusion(that things inherently exist) of form. Consciousness of Form is consciousness still deluded by appearances.
Can you tell us when you lost awareness of form?

Do you see this post? If you do, you are conscious of form.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

The totality has no center, no edges, no size even; for it is beyond measure, beyond limits.

Experience mis-interpreted causes denial or the desire to escape.

Beyond consciousness of form does not negate form, nor negate consciousness, its simply not being taken in by the mirage of separation.
Karius

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Karius »

"romantic love" ( sex + feelings) in men and women ?
There are polls that show that men tend to describe their partner using more romantic wording ( "she is the one") while females don't use that much romantic description of their partner.
You often ladies talking about their partner : "he is great" as if "the weather is good"

If the psychology of men and women differ then their experience of "love" should be different
You hear often females saying " I want to be loved !!"

" I love when he cares about me, cook for me, protect me, calls me, teach me things"
" I don't feel very loved" " what do you like about me ?"
Female seems to be in "receptor mode" or is it they want reassurance ?




For instance yesterday outside my window I heard a mum saying to his son :" I love you .....do you love me ? Do you love me ?!" then the kid replies " ....yes.."

Sue
When you talk about men climbing mountain and doing great stuffs for females , are you describing desperate men? Or is it men that want to show proof of affection because women want proof ? Or that men are carried and propelled by the emotional state of "love" ?


Do you agree with me ?


Concerning that emptiness thing : nothing is something, space is something, worm hole is something
One poster say the universe contains everything :Hence the universe has the purpose to contain everything, it is a container.

I understand that emptiness idea as a blank page you use as reference to protect against delusion : " nothing is happening it is all internal, and is the result of past conditionning and false belief about self, life + genetic etc"

I don't think it is a good idea to try to hijack the human program
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

karius wrote:One poster say the universe contains everything :Hence the universe has the purpose to contain everything, it is a container.
If the Universe is a container then there would be something outside of the container.

karius wrote:I don't think it is a good idea to try to hijack the human program
We shouldn't use our brains?


If very simplistic terms the differences you are describing in men and women is that men see themselves as a subject, and women see themselves as an object.
Karius

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Karius »

...... all looking for truth until the week end comes
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by jupiviv »

Cathy Preston wrote:Freeing yourself from all appearances of mind, then when fly and yak are realized as one, perspective moves freely from fly to yak, yak to fly. You are neither the fly nor the yak, the whole is.

If the fly and the yak are the same then they don't exist to begin with, so how can you be neither one of them? Also, what "whole" are you affirming if the parts of this whole do not exist to begin with?
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

jupiviv wrote:
If the fly and the yak are the same then they don't exist to begin with, so how can you be neither one of them? Also, what "whole" are you affirming if the parts of this whole do not exist to begin with?
I never said they were the same.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by jupiviv »

"They're one", "they're the same" - both of those statements mean the same thing, or in other words, have one meaning. Or perhaps you choose to define those words differently?
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

Picture a cake sliced into pieces do you realize all the pieces are One cake divided up. Realizing they are one cake, doesn't magically make each piece the same piece.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by jupiviv »

One cake cannot be divided up, or else it wouldn't be "one cake". Whatever you consider to be the cake, it cannot have any pieces. If you define some slices of cake to be one cake, then the slices don't have existence any more and there is only the cake. Therefore you cannot logically make any statement about the slices. In fact, anything you said about the slices previously is also illogical, since there ever was the one cake.
Karius

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Karius »

Cathy Preston wrote:
karius wrote:One poster say the universe contains everything :Hence the universe has the purpose to contain everything, it is a container.
If the Universe is a container then there would be something outside of the container.

karius wrote:I don't think it is a good idea to try to hijack the human program
We shouldn't use our brains?


If very simplistic terms the differences you are describing in men and women is that men see themselves as a subject, and women see themselves as an object.


This is word/semantic play here.......the language is limited and manipulated and shape the mind in certain way....
if the universe contains everything then it is limitless but the word container implies limits so if I use the word "container" it means it has limits...but that just the word....

what about a container without limit ?

the idea is not in the english dictionnary? Does that mean it does not exist ?


yes, we should use our brain.....and everything else.

My point regarding male/female emotion regarding "love" is that men tend to be more extreme in everything...they tend be "more" than women....more .loving, creative, smart, strong .....but also more violent or agressive.....

in case of romantic relationship that put them in the subject position.
Cathy Preston
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:13 am
Location: Canada

Re: Women as emotional being :myth ?

Post by Cathy Preston »

jupiviv wrote:One cake cannot be divided up, or else it wouldn't be "one cake". Whatever you consider to be the cake, it cannot have any pieces. If you define some slices of cake to be one cake, then the slices don't have existence any more and there is only the cake. Therefore you cannot logically make any statement about the slices. In fact, anything you said about the slices previously is also illogical, since there ever was the one cake.
So you eat the whole cake at once?
Locked