As I look about, everything I see suggests a greater underlying reality. The world of duality that we are experiencing is constantly demonstrating deeper truths.
For people who seek to escape the evil world, sex is one of the great hindrances. Woman are traditionally designated as the honey trap for aspiring saints and sages, hence, they suffer a great deal of contempt.
"Just avoid women!" -- First step for monks and pious types. Women are nasty and full of pee etc. "Don't be misled!"
Of course, on the practical side of things, we all know that society must continue on. The human race must be preserved. And, even if you don't think so, the human race is compelled to reproduce. And so, fucking will remain a necessity on earth.
But there is quite a bit more to fucking. Quite a bit. For one thing, all humans are a combination male and female. One is a recessive factor and the other more dominate. But, of course, these vary much from person to person. On a personal level, the human being seeks integration within his own body and psyche.
But the grand symbolism of the joining of the male and female in sexual intimacy is a great sign of the ultimate truth. This is why you see all the ancient Indian art and legends about Hindu gods and their female consorts. It is highly symbolic. People should contemplate what it might mean. In fact, sexual intercourse with consciousness is tantra - and a path to enlightenment in itself.
The Symbolism of Sex
-
Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Actually I agree with you for once unwise, I also suspect that the sexual union between man and woman is a symbolic metaphor for the transcendence of duality.
I remember a sexual experience I once had with an ex-girlfriend where as time passed and as the act persisted, I became less and less aware of the act itself and more aware of the surrounding environment. It became so intense that the harder she went, the less I responded until eventually we had to stop because there was no way I was going to reach an orgasm, I was too subsumed into the environment and absorbed in the moment.
The best way I can describe is that ones sensitivity becomes so intense that the pleasure that is being felt by the organs doesn’t even register in the brain.
Other mystical experiences are quite similar in terms of the quality of perception, but overall one should not value an experience because that is all it is, and once it's over it's over so one shouldn’t desire to have it back.
basically what I'm suggesting is that the experience itself means nothing, it is what it is.
I remember a sexual experience I once had with an ex-girlfriend where as time passed and as the act persisted, I became less and less aware of the act itself and more aware of the surrounding environment. It became so intense that the harder she went, the less I responded until eventually we had to stop because there was no way I was going to reach an orgasm, I was too subsumed into the environment and absorbed in the moment.
The best way I can describe is that ones sensitivity becomes so intense that the pleasure that is being felt by the organs doesn’t even register in the brain.
Other mystical experiences are quite similar in terms of the quality of perception, but overall one should not value an experience because that is all it is, and once it's over it's over so one shouldn’t desire to have it back.
basically what I'm suggesting is that the experience itself means nothing, it is what it is.
The real point here is that the physical act in not necessary. Monks don't avoid women because they are bad. That is a pedestrian point of view. Monks avoid women and any other vice because of the pleasure it brings and the human inclination to attach to pleasureabe external influences. As you rightfully point out, the actual journey is ALWAYS an internal one.
In the end, the physical acts offer more of a distraction. Certainly, it is possible to use these influences as motivating platform initially. But it is only a first step. To get stuck in this step is gluttonous. Tantra, yoga, drugs, meditation, raw sex, alcohol, nationalistic pride, sports...all forms of physical experience that offer a kind of trancendance from the common, the mundane. The point to understand is that the "mundane" is actually not mundane, but actually a single part of a much larger whole, as you point out.
In the end, the physical acts offer more of a distraction. Certainly, it is possible to use these influences as motivating platform initially. But it is only a first step. To get stuck in this step is gluttonous. Tantra, yoga, drugs, meditation, raw sex, alcohol, nationalistic pride, sports...all forms of physical experience that offer a kind of trancendance from the common, the mundane. The point to understand is that the "mundane" is actually not mundane, but actually a single part of a much larger whole, as you point out.
Re: The Symbolism of Sex
By integration, do you mean reaching a balance between each person's male and female psyche? If this is what you mean, only the ignorant and unclear mind desires this. The sage knows there is no integration required to achieve enlightenment because everything is integrated.unwise wrote:On a personal level, the human being seeks integration within his own body and psyche.
Show me a man who has achieved enlightenment through sexual intercourse, tantra, as you call it. Then I will show you the male equivelant of a nyphomaniac.unwise wrote:But the grand symbolism of the joining of the male and female in sexual intimacy is a great sign of the ultimate truth. This is why you see all the ancient Indian art and legends about Hindu gods and their female consorts. It is highly symbolic. People should contemplate what it might mean. In fact, sexual intercourse with consciousness is tantra - and a path to enlightenment in itself.
Unwise,
I’m not a Tantric, but coming together is exactly what you say it is, but I do not actually hold a certain particular view as better than another. That too is an essential part of Existence, to be discovered for what it actually is, irrelevant of it’s very “physical†nature.
Absolutely.On a personal level, the human being seeks integration within his own body and psyche.
Absolutely, irrelevant of what one picks to be symbolic according to his own cumulative view, and in that sense, no view is greater or better than another, for that view works only for him on an utterly personal level, and no one can actually know a cumulative view of another, for that is an absolutely different casual condition than his own.It is highly symbolic.
I’m not a Tantric, but coming together is exactly what you say it is, but I do not actually hold a certain particular view as better than another. That too is an essential part of Existence, to be discovered for what it actually is, irrelevant of it’s very “physical†nature.
---------
cp:
That's the Zen experience of 'empty/meaningless'.
When the Ego transmutes to Tao...when Tao is fully experienced as Activity.
When the Ego detaches from the Activity..the Ego's grasping, insecurity (was that good for you,dear)...desire to make it mean something.....when all that Ego shit falls away..
There's only the Activity...and you become the activity or the 'activity activities you'...
At the heart of drama (activity) there lies the Void....void/drama...void/drama...yin/yang...yin/yang....
You can get it milkin' a cow...throwin' a dart...dancing a Spring Waltz...ridin' a bike...it's that moment when you're driving a car and suddenly you feel 'one with the car and the road'....
Sports people call it the Zone.
It's cool.
'Let us consider this waiter in the cafe. His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes towards the patrons with a step a little too quick .. his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer .. he gives himself the quickness and pitiless rapidity of things .. the waiter in the cafe plays with his condition in order to realize it.' (Sartre, 1943)
he he
frank
That's perfect CP.Actually I agree with you for once unwise, I also suspect that the sexual union between man and woman is a symbolic metaphor for the transcendence of duality.
I remember a sexual experience I once had with an ex-girlfriend where as time passed and as the act persisted, I became less and less aware of the act itself and more aware of the surrounding environment. It became so intense that the harder she went, the less I responded until eventually we had to stop because there was no way I was going to reach an orgasm, I was too subsumed into the environment and absorbed in the moment.
The best way I can describe is that ones sensitivity becomes so intense that the pleasure that is being felt by the organs doesn’t even register in the brain.
Other mystical experiences are quite similar in terms of the quality of perception, but overall one should not value an experience because that is all it is, and once it's over it's over so one shouldn’t desire to have it back.
basically what I'm suggesting is that the experience itself means nothing, it is what it is.
That's the Zen experience of 'empty/meaningless'.
When the Ego transmutes to Tao...when Tao is fully experienced as Activity.
When the Ego detaches from the Activity..the Ego's grasping, insecurity (was that good for you,dear)...desire to make it mean something.....when all that Ego shit falls away..
There's only the Activity...and you become the activity or the 'activity activities you'...
At the heart of drama (activity) there lies the Void....void/drama...void/drama...yin/yang...yin/yang....
You can get it milkin' a cow...throwin' a dart...dancing a Spring Waltz...ridin' a bike...it's that moment when you're driving a car and suddenly you feel 'one with the car and the road'....
Sports people call it the Zone.
It's cool.
'Let us consider this waiter in the cafe. His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes towards the patrons with a step a little too quick .. his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer .. he gives himself the quickness and pitiless rapidity of things .. the waiter in the cafe plays with his condition in order to realize it.' (Sartre, 1943)
he he
frank
.
Everytime I've heard a western male extol the virtues of tantric sex, I've found it is often with the least understanding of the tenets of its practice. I'm not talking about you, unwise, but you bring this situation up. Without doubt does a mind and spiritual union become a focus, so much so that bumping and grinding virtually disappear. Most western males have a picture of tantric sex as just sex and sex and sex. Very few understand that male participation in tantric sex requires that they stay erect for long long periods of time; perform the fewest of impulsive movements; direct instead the motion of sex inward and reach the soul to touch the woman in union spirit instead; service the woman for more than one orgasm and at her pace and pleasure without losing this erection, and in the greatest of tantric masters, do all of this without need of orgasm for themselves at all.
A story is told about about a great tantric master who had to urinate, and did so over the balcony of the building he was on. Before the first drop of urine could touch the ground, by force of will, this tantric master slowed, reversed, and drew his urine back into him, and for doing so, was thought the most extraordinarily powerful person indeed. It is a metaphor of course for the return of the vital humors; the re-absorption of all that belongs to the body and the body's powers. It stands for the truly mind-ful individual who can service women endlessly with a minimum of physical movement; pour their beings instead into the spiritual union (this could get close to 'emotion,' look out!), make love, as it were, with their minds over their penises; and in its greatest expression as mentioned before, be able to do all this with a constant, unwavering magnificent erection, and finally, without need of the final paroxism at all. Because that's how powerful their minds have become through this practice. What's an orgasm, says a tantric master -- my mind and spirit have rule over even this greatest giving-in.
So . . . . when a western male brings up tantric sex with that fine and healthy gleam in their eye - nine times out of ten, they haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about. Surely not you, unwise?
.
Everytime I've heard a western male extol the virtues of tantric sex, I've found it is often with the least understanding of the tenets of its practice. I'm not talking about you, unwise, but you bring this situation up. Without doubt does a mind and spiritual union become a focus, so much so that bumping and grinding virtually disappear. Most western males have a picture of tantric sex as just sex and sex and sex. Very few understand that male participation in tantric sex requires that they stay erect for long long periods of time; perform the fewest of impulsive movements; direct instead the motion of sex inward and reach the soul to touch the woman in union spirit instead; service the woman for more than one orgasm and at her pace and pleasure without losing this erection, and in the greatest of tantric masters, do all of this without need of orgasm for themselves at all.
A story is told about about a great tantric master who had to urinate, and did so over the balcony of the building he was on. Before the first drop of urine could touch the ground, by force of will, this tantric master slowed, reversed, and drew his urine back into him, and for doing so, was thought the most extraordinarily powerful person indeed. It is a metaphor of course for the return of the vital humors; the re-absorption of all that belongs to the body and the body's powers. It stands for the truly mind-ful individual who can service women endlessly with a minimum of physical movement; pour their beings instead into the spiritual union (this could get close to 'emotion,' look out!), make love, as it were, with their minds over their penises; and in its greatest expression as mentioned before, be able to do all this with a constant, unwavering magnificent erection, and finally, without need of the final paroxism at all. Because that's how powerful their minds have become through this practice. What's an orgasm, says a tantric master -- my mind and spirit have rule over even this greatest giving-in.
So . . . . when a western male brings up tantric sex with that fine and healthy gleam in their eye - nine times out of ten, they haven't the slightest idea what they're talking about. Surely not you, unwise?
.
.
There're some things to consider behind this tradition, Jamesh, one being the assumption that she's got to have it ("women are flesh; men are spirit" - Kierkegaard), and since this is the case, any [old]master of this tradition shall give it to her - wife, concubine - whoever is his - and give it to her in spades, as they say, and no such man shall become cuckolded in the process, but shall indeed bind these women unto him through deeper union - service her without any fear she shall wander and without any need that he would lose himself (or his "autonomous" spirit) in the process.
Books on modern (western) tantra practice, like everything translated to the postmodern age, offer a kinder, gentler version of this with the focus upon spiritual union and regular satisfaction all around, everything from candles and crap and all such watered down pleasures entropically defined by the herd of pleasure-seekers, even if still the aim is to make something more "mental" out of it for pop-and-drop males.
One has to see the many assumptions this very old tradition carries with it to move past the idea that men become "slaves" in its practice. It is the assumption of women's slavery to their flesh -- and men's spiritual possibility for transcending this without "losing" those helplessly driven women -- that is the real prejudice underlying its early formation.
In the best of its intents, making sex more a spiritual union and the mind a big player in it are not really worthy of poo-poo-ing. A great deal of tantra involves positions of genital union in which the male and female bodies remain as still as possible whilst the mind (and joined spirit) works its way toward climax instead. People claim that with practice, climax happens spontaneously, explosively, and usually together, having handed most everything over to the subtlest motions of the conjoined minds.
.
There're some things to consider behind this tradition, Jamesh, one being the assumption that she's got to have it ("women are flesh; men are spirit" - Kierkegaard), and since this is the case, any [old]master of this tradition shall give it to her - wife, concubine - whoever is his - and give it to her in spades, as they say, and no such man shall become cuckolded in the process, but shall indeed bind these women unto him through deeper union - service her without any fear she shall wander and without any need that he would lose himself (or his "autonomous" spirit) in the process.
Books on modern (western) tantra practice, like everything translated to the postmodern age, offer a kinder, gentler version of this with the focus upon spiritual union and regular satisfaction all around, everything from candles and crap and all such watered down pleasures entropically defined by the herd of pleasure-seekers, even if still the aim is to make something more "mental" out of it for pop-and-drop males.
One has to see the many assumptions this very old tradition carries with it to move past the idea that men become "slaves" in its practice. It is the assumption of women's slavery to their flesh -- and men's spiritual possibility for transcending this without "losing" those helplessly driven women -- that is the real prejudice underlying its early formation.
In the best of its intents, making sex more a spiritual union and the mind a big player in it are not really worthy of poo-poo-ing. A great deal of tantra involves positions of genital union in which the male and female bodies remain as still as possible whilst the mind (and joined spirit) works its way toward climax instead. People claim that with practice, climax happens spontaneously, explosively, and usually together, having handed most everything over to the subtlest motions of the conjoined minds.
.
There are many different lineages, and within each one many different types of tantra, even of the so-called sexual variety, with different purposes in mind.
For one type of view in a talk on a public website, I highly recommend 'The Honey on the Razor's Edge' by by Ngak'chang Rinpoche & Khandro Déchen. Ngakchang Rinpoche is the grand nephew of Schubert, also a Welshman, and also a fully trained 'lama' in the Dzogchen tradition. Apart from that mouthful, the combination of his being Welsh and enlightened - which he clearly is (although again there are levels of this as with anything) - makes for one of the most articulate, bold, brilliant wisdom-lineages authors in the world today. Some of his language is breathtakingly brilliant. I only wish I could say that in Gaelic!
http://www.aroter.org/eng/teachings/honey.htm
excerpt:
"With regard to the imposition of gender attributes, it is preferable for men and women to create their own models. But although this is obviously a way to break new ground, these models are also doomed to become prisons. The problem with new models, is that they are always ‘convex’. They are an imposition. They represent a smaller version of what we are. Convex definitions are always limiting. They are limiting, because they are defined. No matter how broad and subtle the definition - a definition, by definition, is always ‘a definition’. A definition is something brought within limits. A definition is a ‘defined area’ within limitless undefined space.
The ‘space’ of our being cannot be defined; all we can do is point beyond our current models. But how is that possible? In what way can we point beyond our models? The answer is that we cannot; but, we can allow ourselves to experience ‘concave’ definition. In contrast with the exploration of new definitions, the Tantric approach is somewhat radical; as it involves allowing ourselves to be defined by everything that is ‘other’. Tantra proposes relating with a gender-specific experience of reality. For men, the gender experience of the universe is female. For women, the gender experience of the universe is male. For yogis, phenomenal reality is female. For yoginis, phenomenal reality is male.
..."
I was struck by a comment from Jason (?) in another thread, and I paraphrase from vague memory unfortunately, how Quinn's drive to manifest masculinity demonstrates an ability to channel the emotive female into a focussed effort of being a 'Philosopher'.
For one type of view in a talk on a public website, I highly recommend 'The Honey on the Razor's Edge' by by Ngak'chang Rinpoche & Khandro Déchen. Ngakchang Rinpoche is the grand nephew of Schubert, also a Welshman, and also a fully trained 'lama' in the Dzogchen tradition. Apart from that mouthful, the combination of his being Welsh and enlightened - which he clearly is (although again there are levels of this as with anything) - makes for one of the most articulate, bold, brilliant wisdom-lineages authors in the world today. Some of his language is breathtakingly brilliant. I only wish I could say that in Gaelic!
http://www.aroter.org/eng/teachings/honey.htm
excerpt:
"With regard to the imposition of gender attributes, it is preferable for men and women to create their own models. But although this is obviously a way to break new ground, these models are also doomed to become prisons. The problem with new models, is that they are always ‘convex’. They are an imposition. They represent a smaller version of what we are. Convex definitions are always limiting. They are limiting, because they are defined. No matter how broad and subtle the definition - a definition, by definition, is always ‘a definition’. A definition is something brought within limits. A definition is a ‘defined area’ within limitless undefined space.
The ‘space’ of our being cannot be defined; all we can do is point beyond our current models. But how is that possible? In what way can we point beyond our models? The answer is that we cannot; but, we can allow ourselves to experience ‘concave’ definition. In contrast with the exploration of new definitions, the Tantric approach is somewhat radical; as it involves allowing ourselves to be defined by everything that is ‘other’. Tantra proposes relating with a gender-specific experience of reality. For men, the gender experience of the universe is female. For women, the gender experience of the universe is male. For yogis, phenomenal reality is female. For yoginis, phenomenal reality is male.
..."
I was struck by a comment from Jason (?) in another thread, and I paraphrase from vague memory unfortunately, how Quinn's drive to manifest masculinity demonstrates an ability to channel the emotive female into a focussed effort of being a 'Philosopher'.
I kept reading the article after posting and simply cannot resist including this passage, not only because it enriches the thread, but because of the potent 'floweressence' of the language.
"A ‘concave definition’ of what it is that constitutes masculinity or femininity, is one in which our ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ is fundamentally beyond question. We do not need to be cajoled by modern-day savants of sexuality into believing that we have to ‘get in touch with our masculinity or femininity’ - it is already there. According to Tantra, ideas of ‘deep masculine’ or ‘deep feminine’ are actually just deeper dungeons. We do not have to define, or even know, what it is to be male or female, because being male or female is simply what we are. This is experientially evident to anyone who practises Tantra. There are no criteria to which the tantrika has to conform. If you are a yogini, a woman, that is simply what you are - and the same is true of a yogi, a man. According to inner Tantra, the ‘concave definition’ is that your gender is simultaneously fulfilled and transformed by your relationship with your environment. In the Tantric teachings of all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, this is one of the primary vows. The vow is that we attempt to experience the entire spectrum of external reality, either as method-display (male) or as wisdom-display (female).
What do the terms method-display and wisdom-display mean? Our descriptions here will be finger-paintings of inner Tantra, so we should not be too impatient about defining these terms. We should not be blatant in revealing the visceral fire of relationships that are volcanic in their intimacy. When we speak of our lovers, we need to be cautious with our words. The knowledge that hovers above and below the surface of mundane expression should be left unspoken. Voluptuous landscapes of feeling should be left to be inferred. We do not intend to leave anything unsaid; but Tantra needs to disrobe itself according to its own precise passion - perfectly, and with fierce grace. It is neither wise nor practical to expose the heart of this sumptuous reality without creating a conducive atmosphere in which such shocking perspectives can disport themselves with vivid elegance.
..."
"A ‘concave definition’ of what it is that constitutes masculinity or femininity, is one in which our ‘maleness’ or ‘femaleness’ is fundamentally beyond question. We do not need to be cajoled by modern-day savants of sexuality into believing that we have to ‘get in touch with our masculinity or femininity’ - it is already there. According to Tantra, ideas of ‘deep masculine’ or ‘deep feminine’ are actually just deeper dungeons. We do not have to define, or even know, what it is to be male or female, because being male or female is simply what we are. This is experientially evident to anyone who practises Tantra. There are no criteria to which the tantrika has to conform. If you are a yogini, a woman, that is simply what you are - and the same is true of a yogi, a man. According to inner Tantra, the ‘concave definition’ is that your gender is simultaneously fulfilled and transformed by your relationship with your environment. In the Tantric teachings of all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, this is one of the primary vows. The vow is that we attempt to experience the entire spectrum of external reality, either as method-display (male) or as wisdom-display (female).
What do the terms method-display and wisdom-display mean? Our descriptions here will be finger-paintings of inner Tantra, so we should not be too impatient about defining these terms. We should not be blatant in revealing the visceral fire of relationships that are volcanic in their intimacy. When we speak of our lovers, we need to be cautious with our words. The knowledge that hovers above and below the surface of mundane expression should be left unspoken. Voluptuous landscapes of feeling should be left to be inferred. We do not intend to leave anything unsaid; but Tantra needs to disrobe itself according to its own precise passion - perfectly, and with fierce grace. It is neither wise nor practical to expose the heart of this sumptuous reality without creating a conducive atmosphere in which such shocking perspectives can disport themselves with vivid elegance.
..."
cosmic_prostitute wrote:Other mystical experiences are quite similar in terms of the quality of perception, but overall one should not value an experience because that is all it is, and once it's over it's over so one shouldn’t desire to have it back.
Like love, money, LSD, or cocaine, any time someone achieves some type of mystical experience through these things, it puts you that much further away from the Truth. The desire and experiences of these attachments only strengthens the ego even more.
Of course you can't just one day decide you no longer will allow yourself to experience these attachments. That will probably make you desire them even more. Only through Truth can these desires be destroyed, which is why it is even more important to avoid them.
Tantra is first seeing that you are primarily a male (if you are a man). Then you see that you are also female. These are rudimentary discoveries. In enlightenment, you see what the universal male is - the all-pervading Purusha - without feelings, opinions, activity, thought.....
You then see what the female is - everything in existence in the universe. Everything that is active and animated.
In enlightenment, you see yourself as the universal male and female. Far far spread out from what the ego can perceive. As Purusha and Prakriti.
If someone said to me to describe my personality, I would have to point to every person in every race in every culture in every time - then I would say that each of these is expressing a part of me. They are all me. I am litterally all the men and women and children and old people you have ever seen.
And then I could also say that I am none of that at all. Not even a being. Not even a being in time and space.
I literally feel that I am everyone and no one.
You then see what the female is - everything in existence in the universe. Everything that is active and animated.
In enlightenment, you see yourself as the universal male and female. Far far spread out from what the ego can perceive. As Purusha and Prakriti.
If someone said to me to describe my personality, I would have to point to every person in every race in every culture in every time - then I would say that each of these is expressing a part of me. They are all me. I am litterally all the men and women and children and old people you have ever seen.
And then I could also say that I am none of that at all. Not even a being. Not even a being in time and space.
I literally feel that I am everyone and no one.
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Well, almost. There is no all-pervading anything, that's just some crutch for the lame. Even the witness is, like all manifestations of consciousness, part of Nature.unwise wrote:Tantra is first seeing that you are primarily a male (if you are a man). Then you see that you are also female. These are rudimentary discoveries. In enlightenment, you see what the universal male is - the all-pervading Purusha - without feelings, opinions, activity, thought.....
You then see what the female is - everything in existence in the universe. Everything that is active and animated.
This is how we can understand the masculine and feminine in the universal sense. They are both still activities and that's why they are presented as polarities. But the masculine we can describe as the force that is orientated toward unity and the whole, toward reality. The feminine is directed toward the parts, toward existence and the illusion that it is - thereby necessarily forming disguise and misrepresentation as means to live by and die for.
-
suergaz
-
Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
from my first impressions of the approach here:
the feminine is unwilling to stand alone, and therefore needs/seeks confirmation.
This is reminiscent of Hexagram #2, 'the receptive', six unbroken, yin line, the most Yin/Feminine of all the hexagrams of course.
I am having a lot of fun contemplating this material in terms of considering the dynamic as a metaphysical polarity that plays out in all situations (how water flows, lips form an 'O', birdsong sound more 'tubular' at twilight and so forth), but at the same time obviously the example references real life men and women as such.
I read a story about this today from a western (female) student interchanging with a Bhurmese meditation master. She was the only woman there, I think, was there for a while; his style was very 'yang', she says. She had no problem studying with him. At some point, though, she asked him one day:'is it any problem for women to become enlightened?'
'well, it is impossible, absolutely impossible for a woman to become enlightened, he replied.
'but you said that all of us could attain enlightenment! Now you say that I as a woman cannot!!'
'Well, so who says you are a woman?'
I think Quinn has identified a root dynamic in all human experience/culture, moreover one that is seriously unbalanced right now in the ending civilisational phase (to be Spenglerian about it) of the current 'developed world' order. Not only men per se, but our entire notion of the human life journey has been radically 'feminized', meaning that it lacks teh desire and means to take the bull of existential challenge by the horns and wrestle for something more than the requisite mortgage payments and burgers on the suburban grill.
the feminine is unwilling to stand alone, and therefore needs/seeks confirmation.
This is reminiscent of Hexagram #2, 'the receptive', six unbroken, yin line, the most Yin/Feminine of all the hexagrams of course.
I am having a lot of fun contemplating this material in terms of considering the dynamic as a metaphysical polarity that plays out in all situations (how water flows, lips form an 'O', birdsong sound more 'tubular' at twilight and so forth), but at the same time obviously the example references real life men and women as such.
I read a story about this today from a western (female) student interchanging with a Bhurmese meditation master. She was the only woman there, I think, was there for a while; his style was very 'yang', she says. She had no problem studying with him. At some point, though, she asked him one day:'is it any problem for women to become enlightened?'
'well, it is impossible, absolutely impossible for a woman to become enlightened, he replied.
'but you said that all of us could attain enlightenment! Now you say that I as a woman cannot!!'
'Well, so who says you are a woman?'
I think Quinn has identified a root dynamic in all human experience/culture, moreover one that is seriously unbalanced right now in the ending civilisational phase (to be Spenglerian about it) of the current 'developed world' order. Not only men per se, but our entire notion of the human life journey has been radically 'feminized', meaning that it lacks teh desire and means to take the bull of existential challenge by the horns and wrestle for something more than the requisite mortgage payments and burgers on the suburban grill.