Ryan Rudolph wrote:He doesn't feel hate towards them, but he doesn't place them on a pedestal either. It is merely a matter of seeing both sexes as they are, without any distortion.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:A hatred of women usually happens when the spiritual seeker is young, has a lot of libido, and is frustrated by his inability to connect with women on a deeper level, and frustrated by his inability to have constant sexual fulfillment and the women of his choice. Most sexual crimes agaisn't women occur due to this frustration that builds up in men.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:The end result is a man that is a shell of what he could be, and his life ends up filled with despair, loneliness and negative karma.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:no I wasn't implying that David fell under that category. Overall, I think his generalizations and critique is highly accurate of how most women are. Sound reasoning in my opinion.
Is it not human nature to conceal the animal nature ?
For every negative thing you can find reguarding a woman there is a positive. And vice versa with men.
...a normal healthy realtionship with women.
it's the majority that rules
Our bodies are nothing but chemicals...male and female hormones are us.
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Humans have no essence. They are neither one way nor another necessarily. What they happen to do is more often accidental than virtuous.
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Those who go against the norm have no use for normal; those whose temperament is made for solitude have no use for relationships, no matter how healthy normal people insist they are. Jesus never married: in all likelihood, he never had a normal healthy relationship with women.
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:That's a rather trite expression. It's almost as though you think truth is democratic. Which side would you be on? Galileo, or the philosophers?
Can you please give an example ? i have a hard time following that one .
Trevor Salyzyn wrote:instance, human nature is benevolent. Or, humans are essentially evil.
Kunga wrote:i only read it on the fly...so this discussion can expose the depths....
..i tried to imagine i was David....i could feel the immense pain...a love/hate relationship with women...
and a deep desire to transcend my human nature by destroying any attachment to women in the pursuit of Enlightenment.
Therefore he must kill all love and admiration of woman by reducing her to nothing more than a clump of dirt. If this hatred and loathing of woman was put in physical form, rather than expressed in words...he would be behind bars.
A true Sage is beyond love and hate.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Why not read it in depth, slowly and thorough as it was written?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Why would you imagine straight away the feelings of the author as first argument? The problem is that there's no defense, no critique possible to what you think David must be feeling. It does create an atmosphere of bias with a veiled ad hominid, although I'm not entirely against character analysis, but starting with it doesn't look helpful.
Kunga wrote:....as a woman i know how a woman thinks...but his detest towars women clouds his thinking...if i was a sage and he was my student i would require him to learn to love woman and have a lover before he has any right to Enlightenment...
dejavu wrote:Diebert:Could you give an example where the clump of dirt comparison was made? We're all clumps of dirt in the end with some breath or spark added, after all."Compared to the majesty of God women are as about interesting as a lump of dirt. They are like cream cakes - capable of giving one great pleasure for a moment but fail to satisfy in any genuine sense."
The man who wrote this does not truly possess what can be called sagacity.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:lack of experience
Kunga wrote:lack of a successful experience....he failed as a man to have a successful/rewarding experience with a woman...and so he wallows in his misery, and decides to lash out like a child that didn't get what he wanted ...
as i read this essay now, the red flags of hypocrisy and childish views and distortions run amock...not to mention his being diagnosed as having a personality disorder...
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The problem is that now it's up to you to describe the exact "success" factor in relationships and how to experience such. Good luck! Do you see how you go from "requiring him to learn to love woman and have a lover" to: love successfully have some rewarding experience with the lover in question. It's a slippery slope in a discussion but feel free to expand on the secrets to real love.
Kunga wrote:i realize there is more to life than having personal happiness....and that is responsibility. Responsibility to other peoples happiness.
So to answer your question as to what is a succesful relationship...it is one in which you don't wind up hating the opposite sex, but continue to grow and mature as an adult not blaming or shameing the opposite sex for your mistakes.
Kunga wrote:Hey ! i never listened to Kate Bush before...i just found out who she was for the first time now Diebert :)
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Kunga wrote:Hey ! i never listened to Kate Bush before...i just found out who she was for the first time now Diebert :)
I only mentioned it because your avatar icon shows her recent album cover. And because she sings about love now and again.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What do you think of this sentence from the article: She strives to make everyone like herself - open-minded, happy, tolerant, caring, sensitive to others, cooperative - that is, a non-entity. Have you an idea what he might mean with "non-entity"?
Kunga wrote: He is alluding to women being non-existent (non-entity), and those characteristics of open-mindedness, happy, tolerant, caring,sensitive to others, cooperative, are valid attributes any human can aspire to....they do not cause one to become invisable or non-existent....like a woman (his woman), but to be more HUMAN/HUMANE.
Woman claims to desire real substance, yet the values she holds dear - her "living for others" - necessarily implies her lack of it. She desires substance, but it is impossible for her to create something out of nothing.Instead, she must continually strive to weaken others, to reduce them to her own level of nothingness. Only in this way, she can gain a feeling of substance.
Kunga wrote:Many times i thought it's not worth even reading...let alone comment about...i feel like i'm wasting my time.
Nick Treklis wrote:I think when it comes to true spirituality, if a person doesn't show signs of getting it right away, they have no chance of ever getting it. Real wisdom can easily penetrate through even the most deluded minds to move one's soul, but if there is no soul, just delusion through and through, nothing can be done. If wisdom is a tree, it needs a place to set it's roots.
Kunga wrote:I've read many wonderful spiritual books, none of them sound anything like what Quinn has written...
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Real philosophy is hard,
Users browsing this forum: Dan Rowden, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests