Check it Out! An enlightened woman.

[sevens]

She has realized that the true nature of "all is illusion," is love: a perfect understanding of situation, in the real world. Love is what enables pattern development - energy.

[Dan Rowden]

I said what I said, because, she has realized that the true nature of "all is illusion," is love - or, a perfect understanding of situation, in the real world.

You're assuming this is what she means by "love". I don't think that's been established yet. I have no idea what she means by it. Whether I ever get to find out is questionable. And let's not forget that the notion "all is illusion" is actually wrong, from an ultimate standpoint. If this is where she's at then she's simply dwelling in the all too familiar "Oneness" philosophy. It's an abortive view but one that is popular with women because it allows for very nice "feelings" when you embrace it.

Here she is in action:

Judi wrote regarding the art at this site:

>>>http://www.francenehart.com

>>A "demand for attention", promoting itself as a "visionary".

>>I see those pictures, makes me want to throw up, it's so disgusting.

Then I wrote:

I agree with you about the works at that site, but funnily enough that's pretty much the same reaction I had to your own website. The "girliness" and overuse of smilies rather disgusted me. Perhaps we could discuss the reasons you add so many of those smilies to your literary output?

Her response:

Its humor, they're not "smiles". BIG difference.

Apparantly she finds "humour" in almost everything she writes. I'm starting to see her point of view..........



Dan Rowden

[Dan Rowden]

This is a conversation we've started to have; one which I can't see going anywhere meaningful. "**********" indicates her speaking to me:

Judi wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Dan Rowden
>To: TheEndOfTheRopeRanch@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 3:38 PM
>Subject: [TheEndOfTheRopeRanch] Enlightenment apparently just happens.

>>On her website Judi says the following: "There is nothing you can do to enlighten yourself."
>>Am I to assume from this that it is a waste of time to think about enlightenment and that it
>>just happens or doesn't happen? If so, why does the website contain anything more than
>>the simple message: don't think about enlightenment? And for that matter, what's the point
>>of this discussion list?

*********There's a subtlety in that message - there is nothing you can *do* to enligthen yourself.

What if I jog every day? But seriously, it's obviously *too* subtle for me because I don't get it. It strikes me as illogical given how much time you spend talking about what people should be doing. Perhaps you could expand on the idea a little.

********** It's not an idea, this is not a philosophy class. It's a turn back around to yourself, a catching of yourself in the act of being a self. That's all there is to it. I can't really make it anymore plain.

It reminds me way too much of that popular piece of New Agey drivel that there's really nothing to do because we already dwell in enlightenment/reality anyway.

******** Nope, not even close.

Whilst it's platitudinously true that we already dwell in reality, as how could we do otherwise, reality being the infinite totality, it doesn't follow from that that we don't do so [dwell in reality] deludedly. To me if enlightenment is anything at all it is consciousness divested of delusion regarding the nature of self and existence.

By way of an introduction my myself and my perspective on enlightenment,

************* Your perspective of enlightenment is just so much bullshit.

members may wish to take a look at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/drowden/ or visit the web-based discussion forum of which I am an admin: http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/

>Think boy, think!!

Ok, and yet you also said:

>Not to mention, how can you think about something, "enlightenment", when it doesn't "exist"? :-)

So, what is it you want me to think about?

*********** It's not thinking about anything, but rather self-inquiry, catching yourself in the act, seeing into your own bullshit, who and what "you" are.

And why should I take any notice of your assertion that enlightenment doesn't exist? We're talking about it, aren't we?

********* No, you are bullshitting about something that doesn't exist.

Does it exist at least as a notion that can be talked about?

********* Nope.


How can we even type the word if it has no existence and therefore no meaning? You must have thought about enlightenment at some point to have come to the conclusion that it doesn't exist,

********* Nope, I was never so egotistical. Never one for bullshitting.

so it doesn't seem very helpful to tell people you can't think about it because it doesn't exist. Certainly, nothing exists *inherently* (i.e. self-causing and separate from reality) but that's not the same as saying nothing exists. To do the latter is self-evidently foolish as things obviously do exist. The question is what it means for something to "exist". For me, to exist is to present an appearance, to "abide" within consciousness. Consciousness is not, however, separate from its content - it literally *is* its content. Consciousness, which is what we are, like reality/nature/god itself, has no basis, no foundation, no essence. It's no good looking for such a thing because whatever we assert it to be (e.g. some kind of "soul" concept) that is just another thing that presents an appearance. Consciousness is just a word for "things". That's all there is: things.

*********** Read above.

I've noticed that you speak a lot about the illusion or false nature of "separateness". The realisation of that falsity is an important step in an even greater realisation, but do you know it's not ultimately true? Separateness and connection are both false as seen from an ultimate perspective. God cannot be one side of a duality. It's perfectly reasonable for us to, for practical purposes, see things as separate or connected, so long as we understand we are engaging in an arbitrary activity for said practical purposes.

Rather than ramble on let me ask you a question: what's your understanding of the Buddhist notion of "Emptiness"?

******** Once you seen one notion, you seen them all.

Judi

Dan Rowden

[David Quinn]

She is imitating UG Krishnamurti. I doubt that you'll ever get a proper conversation out of her, Dan. She has too many tricks up her sleeve. She is under the illusion that wisdom is a form of cunning.

-

seven's wrote:

She has realized that the true nature of "all is illusion," is love: a perfect understanding of situation, in the real world.

Are all people who are immersed in this love as evasive and rude as her?

Love is what enables pattern development - energy.

I thought it was plastomine which did this.

-

[David Quinn]

Kevin wrote:

I find it funny how she can go from being the most deluded person on the planet (ie, "the most loving") to being enlightened, instantaneously!

Haven't you heard, Kevin? Women can do anything!

It's official!

It is interesting that you say the most loving person is the most deluded. Most people would think such a person is almost a perfect being! That is certainly the conventional view. But here you are asserting the complete opposite - namely, that the loving person is infinitely removed from wisdom. Why is that, exactly?



-

[Matt Gregory]

Well, I guess we got the whole scoop on Judi Rhodes.

What about Gangaji? Here's a little satsanging from her book:

http://www.gangaji.org/satsang/library/yat.asp

[Matt Gregory]

Here's a better one:

http://www.gangaji.org/satsang/library/ ... arning.asp

What is she talking about?

[Matt Gregory]

I guess they're both just trying to make miserable people happy.

[Blair]

Well, I guess we got the whole scoop on Judi Rhodes.

Come on man, where have you been? Judi Rhodes is like so two days ago..

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah, she's ancient. I'm kind of slow.

Sue wrote in Kelly's Special Thread:

What makes this whole issue even more interesting, is the fact that, (and I’ve said this many times before) there is no evidence that a biological female ever became a great philosopher

Here, I'll bless the list with two stories of women from the days when Zen Buddhism actually existed. These are over a thousand years old (c. 9th-10th centuries) Here's the first:

A laywoman was studying with Ta-hui while Wan-an was head monk at Ta-hui's temple. Over Wan-an's objections, Ta-hui allowed the woman to stay in the monk's quarters, on the grounds that "she was no ordinary woman." Finally, at Ta-hui's insistence, Wan-an went to talk with her. She asked if he wished a worldly encounter or a spiritual one. He indicated the latter, but when he entered her room, he found her lying flat on her back, completely naked. "What kind of place is that?" said Wan-an, pointing at her. "The place whence all the buddhas of the Three Worlds, all six Zen partriarchs, and all the venerable priests in the land have emerged," she replied. "Would you allow me to enter?" he asked. "It isn't a place donkeys and horses can go," she said. Wan-an was unable to reply. "The meeting is over," she said, turning her back to him.

Here's another:

Master Chu Ti was from Chin Hua in Wu Chou (in Chekiang). During the time he first dwelt in a hermitage, there was a nun named Shih Chi ('Reality') who came to his hut. When she got there she went straight in; without taking off her rain hat she walked around his meditation seat three times holding her staff. "If you can speak," she said, "I'll take off my rain hat." She questioned him like this three times; Chu Ti had no reply. Then as she was leaving Chu Ti said, "The hour is rather late: would you stay the night?" The nun said, "If you can speak, I'll stay over." Again Chu Ti had no reply. The nun then walked out. Chu Ti sighed sorrowfully and said, "Although I inhabit the body of a man, still I lack a man's spirit." After this he aroused his zeal to clarify this matter.

So, there isn't a total lack of evidence. I believe both of these women could have existed and they could have been wise.

[Dan Rowden]

While we're trying to get a hard-on (we are, aren't we?):

Cool Chicks Doing Yoga I Think


Dan Rowden

[Ras866]

So, Dan ... Honestly, what is your final take on Judi Rhodes after talking with her?

[sschaula]

Matt, why do you think those women were wise? They just seem to have been psychotic to me.

[Matt Gregory]

Heh, this is too easy!

Dan gets the laywoman. Scott gets the nun.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The women in the Zen-Buddhist stories seem in both cases to represent Wisdom itself, a sort of eastern Sophia. So their appearance as woman has a function in the story itself, not as historical persons.

Maybe some other candidates could be found on the following site? Historical Women of Philosophy 600 BC - 17th Century AD

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert wrote:

The women in the Zen-Buddhist stories seem in both cases to represent Wisdom itself,…

Whilst this is true, it is also true that someone must have fucked a woman to give birth to Buddhas, priests and Zen patriarchs. Unless, of course, you believe in immaculate conception.

Wisdom, or its lack, lies in one’s response to notions of the flesh -- that is to say, whether or not it is seen for what it is.

This monk could not enter (obvious by virtue of the fact of his not choosing the worldy experience) because he is a donkey and, through her and the already wise man, lies the best potential for the rebirth and rearing of wisdom.

Do we have more donkeys or more wise men and women in the world?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Whilst this is true, it is also true that someone must have fucked a woman to give birth to Buddhas, priests and Zen patriarchs.

You mean a Buddha is born? Woman always gives birth to a donkey-monkey which might be reborn as Buddha through wisdom alone. Immaculate conception indeed since it has specifically nothing to do with Woman. There are reasons why through the ages a female often portrays Wisdom personified. Do you know any and have you an idea of the great irony in this? Which of course has lead to great confusion in religious cults up until today.

Wisdom, or its lack, lies in one’s response to notions of the flesh -- that is to say, whether or not it is seen for what it is

The only lack in wisdom is stated with "Wan-an was unable to reply". The word reply might be equalled with response here. Exactly like in the other story: "Chu Ti had no reply. The nun then walked out. Chu Ti sighed sorrowfully and said: Although I inhabit the body of a man, still I lack a man's spirit.

Spiritual impotence.

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert wrote:

You mean a Buddha is born? Woman always gives birth to a donkey-monkey which might be reborn as Buddha through wisdom alone. Immaculate conception indeed since it has specifically nothing to do with Woman.

I didn’t say “Woman,” I said “a woman.” Are you trying to tell me the two are exactly the same? Perhaps you may care to further elaborate, then, on Kelly’s questions regarding living exactly the truth of that which you speak: are you coddled in any way by Woman?

Does this empower you?

There are reasons why through the ages a female often portrays Wisdom personified. Do you know any and have you an idea of the great irony in this?

Yes, I reckon I do.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert wrote:

You mean a Buddha is born? Woman always gives birth to a donkey-monkey which might be reborn as Buddha through wisdom alone. Immaculate conception indeed since it has specifically nothing to do with Woman.

I didn’t say “Woman,” I said “a woman.” Are you trying to tell me the two are exactly the same?

But you did say: "someone must have fucked a woman to give birth to Buddhas, [venerable] priests and [all six] Zen patriarchs". Are you trying to tell me that the Buddha and a donkey-baby are 'exactly the same'?

Perhaps you may care to further elaborate, then, on Kelly’s questions regarding living exactly the truth of that which you speak: are you coddled in any way by Woman?

So you are asking me if I'm a donkey or a horse. If you hear the familiar noises or catch the smell, you should be able to tell!

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla: I didn’t say “Woman,” I said “a woman.” Are you trying to tell me the two are exactly the same?

Diebert: But you did say: "someone must have fucked a woman to give birth to Buddhas, [venerable] priests and [all six] Zen patriarchs". Are you trying to tell me that the Buddha and a donkey-baby are 'exactly the same'?

This does warrant further clarification, which I had hoped would be evident in the context that followed it:

This monk could not enter (obvious by virtue of the fact of his not choosing the worldy experience) because he is a donkey and, through her and the already wise man, lies the best potential for the rebirth and rearing of wisdom.

Obviously, a Buddha and a donkey-baby are not exactly the same. Neither are the head monk and the wise man.

A donkey-baby is conceived through man and woman, and given birth to by the woman. Since we can assume, for practical purposes, that all Buddhas etc were at one time donkey-babies, then the notion of “Woman” giving birth to anything alone and aside from ignorance is, in fact, entirely deluded. Even your notion of Immaculate Conception occurs after a non-immaculate one (“reborn as“). Or, will you contradict yourself and claim that there is a way in which a Buddha can be born in any other way than through wisdom?

We do indeed have more donkeys than wise men and women. This is what drives us into the arms of science and the correspondent desire for controlled birth through a test tube. However, unless man abandons Woman even those efforts and all that result from them will be sabotaged by “Her” and wisdom will be in no better a position than it was in the time of the monk-woman story, than it is now, or than it could ever be with “Her” around.

So, are “Woman” and “a woman” exactly the same?

On Spiritual Impotence:

Despite the fact of the head monk’s initial objections, his first question to this woman was, “What kind of place is that?” And, when she gave him an answer, he -- believing from it that he may find enlightenment -- requests entry.

Leyla: Wisdom, or its lack, lies in one’s response to notions of the flesh -- that is to say, whether or not it is seen for what it is

Diebert: The only lack in wisdom is stated with "Wan-an was unable to reply". The word reply might be equalled with response here. Exactly like in the other story: "Chu Ti had no reply. The nun then walked out. Chu Ti sighed sorrowfully and said: Although I inhabit the body of a man, still I lack a man's spirit.

Spiritual impotence.

Such sweet sorrow. That does indeed represent a significant lack of wisdom, does it not? And the irony is almost unbearable.

Perhaps you may care to further elaborate, then, on Kelly’s questions regarding living exactly the truth of that which you speak: are you coddled in any way by Woman?

Diebert: So you are asking me if I'm a donkey or a horse. If you hear the familiar noises or catch the smell, you should be able to tell!

I am asking you if you are coddled in any way by Woman. Why do you avoid answering the question directly? Should I take my clothes off and lie naked on the floor?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Since we can assume, for practical purposes, that all Buddhas etc were at one time donkey-babies, then the notion of “Woman” giving birth to anything alone and aside from ignorance is, in fact, entirely deluded.

Despite his birth as a donkey and being raised by Woman, a man can still struggle toward awakening. But Buddhahood itself has no beginning.

So, are “Woman” and “a woman” exactly the same?

No. One is a more general principle of human existence, the other one a biological category. Which one would be more real to you?

Despite the fact of the head monk’s initial objections, his first question to this woman was, “What kind of place is that?” And, when she gave him an answer, he -- believing from it that he may find enlightenment -- requests entry.

Indeed, the seeker cannot enter. The same reference I believe is made in the gospel of John, chapter 3.

3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”

5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

NB: water baptism originally referred to ego-death and elimination of karma (sin).

I am asking you if you are coddled in any way by Woman. Why do you avoid answering the question directly? Should I take my clothes off and lie naked on the floor?

My reply was just as direct as the one the naked laywoman gave in the story. If you meant to ask if I participate in society, have friends or partners, why don't you ask straight?

You'll learn nothing new though: the flesh gravitates toward Woman, the spirit gravitates toward Truth.

[sevens]

Sneezed on the keyboard again.

[Dan Rowden]

So, Dan ... Honestly, what is your final take on Judi Rhodes after talking with her?

It's impossible to say. The woman never really says all that much. She doesn't answer questions. The stuff she's written doesn't impress me and is really standard Hindu guru speak. I found her to be quite a hypocrite, actually. She scowls at what she regards as the "bullshit" (she uses that word a lot) of others' ideas but reacts very badly to any challenging of her. It only took a couple of my posts for this to happen:

Judi,

I have a question for ya.

Why in the high hells do so many people like to pick fights with you!?!?!

It seems more people are here to voice there opinion and argue with you then anything else.

It's just strange is all. People even say they aren't picking fights with you but it sure looks to me like a case of - You're not right, I'm right and I will tell you why! - then you respond - then they fight even harder! - rinse and repeat again and again.

I don't know, just odd to me.

Joel

P.S. - What the hell is with all the big words Dan, I mean
'platitudinously'? I like big words too but wow. Just crazy man!

**************
Yep, good eye Joel!

People that do that obviously have some personal insecurity problem they're trying to work through. But that's certainly not the way to go about it, because all that does is strengthen it and make it worse.

I try to keep them off the list, I got better things to do than to
fight with egos, but they make a very good example of what separateness is all about though, don't they?

Thanks for seeing it.

Judi

Anyway, I've been unsubscribed from her list so this issue is dead for me.


Dan Rowden

[Matt Gregory]

Edit: Nah, some other time.

[Leyla Shen]

Despite his birth as a donkey and being raised by Woman, a man can still struggle toward awakening.

Yes, a man can -- and does -- still struggle toward awakening, for as long as he struggles with manhood.

“The only lack in wisdom is stated with "Wan-an was unable to reply". The word reply might be equalled with response here. Exactly like in the other story: "Chu Ti had no reply. The nun then walked out. Chu Ti sighed sorrowfully and said: Although I inhabit the body of a man, still I lack a man's spirit.

Spiritual impotence.”

But Buddhahood itself has no beginning.

Sure. Unlike manhood.

Why do you suppose Jesus referred to himself as "The Son of Man" descended from heaven?

LS: So, are “Woman” and “a woman” exactly the same?

DvR: No. One is a more general principle of human existence, the other one a biological category. Which one would be more real to you?

As far as I am concerned, neither is necessarily any more nor any less real than the other, or the next thing. How about you?