GENIUS FORUMS

Kelly actually wrote:

Marsha, calm down.

Clever. But not clever enough.

As you know, I was quite calm when I wrote the post in question. Quite calm and reasonable.

You are starting to remind me of Anna from the old Genius-L. In fact, you are starting to remind me a lot of Anna. She was also infatuated with Kevin Solway.

Easiest tactic in the world to pretend that Marsha the Bulldog has gotten off her leash.

Your femininity makes me sick.

Faizi

Kelly: I'm glad you've pointed it out, that attachment to an ideal is as delusional as sexual desire.

Leyla: Almost. I would add a couple more words, like so:

...that attachment to an ideal is as delusional as attachment to sexual desire.

Kelly: Harping on about enlightenment, and everything related, may not stem from attachment.

Then,

Kelly: I'd say it would be difficult. Since I've never tried, this would have to be my best guess. I'd say he'd imagine penetrating the miniscule vagina of a baby girl, using the image of a penis thrusting in and out of a blood-engorged, mucus-coated vagina, and effortlessly know that all these experiences are illusory. Something like that.

So, do you now concede that it is possible to have sexual desire without attachment?

In other words, sexual desire is not necessarily delusional?

Reveal, and Dig -

Virtual constructs exist.

Where's my Outkast cd?

Leyla Shen wrote:

Why is the feminine mind naturally about women and men, but not the masculine mind?

The feminine mind is the engine of the world – it generates all the emotional and irrational play. Both men and women play together there.

The masculine mind, as rare as it is, understands and has compassion for the world. Using reason to unravel the feminine, in an attempt to bring about its downfall; is only a small part of the masculine potential. The power of this potential is made apparent, when you consider that, the feminine mind isn’t aware of itself at all, whereas, the masculine mind has the ability to know itself in its entirety. Only men have the capacity to live with such an undertaking, so they travel alone.

Sue

Sue asked:

Who told you that?

In order -- Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Dan Rowden.

And you believed what you were told?

No, but I did come to know the truth of it.

Faizi

So, do you now concede that it is possible to have sexual desire without attachment?

In other words, sexual desire is not necessarily delusional?

Any degree of burning with lust to have sex is not compatible with perfect Buddhahood, because that lust presupposes love for things.

In the scenario I guessed at, there was a logical use of images known to create an erection. It would be no different to calmly using mental techniques to stay warm in cold conditions. Neither would entail desire.

I think it's more important to understand Reality perfectly than to have sex as much as I want.

I wrote:

Universe = Everything

Everything therefore = Nothing

Therefore Nothing can get rid of Everything.

What chance has femininity got when Nothing looks her way?

Marsha wrote:

And a bird is a word.

I get no meaning whatsoever from the above. Reads like Beatle lyrics. Pop poetry.

Perhaps I was being a bit too whimsical here.

Then again, I find your idea Marsha, that -

Nothing gets rid of the femininity -- not just in a woman but in a man

- also a bit whimsical.

If it were true, that femininity was stuck hard and fast, the Genius forum may as well stop right here and now. Luckily, femininity may like to posture itself as omnipresent and omnipotent, but thankfully masculinity knows better.

The forum is, as Dan writes:

dedicated to the nature of Genius, Wisdom and Ultimate Reality and to the total annihilation of false values.

Since femininity is the home of false values, evicting her, and all her baggage, could take some time.

Sue

Somehow, I still find you to be quite the romantic, sue hindmarsh. Must be the element of mystery inferred from your position.

The power of this potential is made apparent, when you consider that, the feminine mind isn’t aware of itself at all, whereas, the masculine mind has the ability to know itself in its entirety. Only men have the capacity to live with such an undertaking, so they travel alone.

Sounds to me like you're talking about conscience, raising the question of morality, of course.

You appear to have some of it yourself.

I will give this some more thought.

As one's ego grows, so does its shadow.

Regardless of causality,

I would like to apologize.

You sound as though you've had some sort of realization, seven.

-

Well, I think I am done with this.

Faizi

kjones wrote:Are you suicidal?

Killing off the ego is essentially suicide, even if you remain alive in a physical sense. You become a dead man walking.

Lesson learned.

Power, trip.

Much light springing out from the the folks here and it fills my heart with joy. A deep gratitude for all that post here.

Namaste and Maranatha

prince wrote:

kjones wrote:Are you suicidal?

Killing off the ego is essentially suicide, even if you remain alive in a physical sense. You become a dead man walking.

Did you wish to be egotistically dead in five years' time?

Or were you wishing to lose the human boat in five years' time, and to become something else ?


Kelly

Any degree of burning with lust to have sex is not compatible with perfect Buddhahood, because that lust presupposes love for things.

OK.

In the scenario I guessed at, there was a logical use of images known to create an erection. It would be no different to calmly using mental techniques to stay warm in cold conditions. Neither would entail desire.

I suppose calm sex is out of the question?

Is a Buddha a man?

I think this raises the question of semantics. If the drive that causes the Buddha to use such images in order to stay warm in cold conditions also provides for the participation in a sexual act, why would keeping the body alive be more important to a Buddha than anything else? This is a dude with no ego, right?

I think it's more important to understand Reality perfectly than to have sex as much as I want.

Sure.

Marsha wrote:

Enlightenment is the effect that is caused by deep introspective thought over a course of time. When I first came to Genius -- about eight years ago -- I was told that enlightenment is not something that can be had in a matter of days or months but something that takes years of work.

I asked Marsha:

Who told you that?

Marsha wrote:

In order -- Kevin Solway, David Quinn, Dan Rowden.

I also asked:

And you believed what you were told?

Marsha wrote:

No, but I did come to know the truth of it.

So, at first you thought them worthy enough to accept their information; but now you think their usefulness has come to an end? I assumed that this was the case, though I could be wrong, after reading your recent posts; which spelt out your dissatisfaction with the three of them. But if you really do consider them as dysfunctional as you make them out to be, why would you take anything they said seriously?

I know you find them:

very intelligent and good writers

But that isn’t all there is to them – is it? They seem to be more interested in Genius, than in becoming "intelligent" and "good writers".

David Quinn writes in the introduction to this forum:

Being exceptionally good at some particular task does not automatically make one a genius.

He continues by describing how:

Genius is a function of one's relationship with Ultimate Reality and thus is a function of consciousness. The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius. By this definition, people like Jesus, the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and Socrates were geniuses to greater or lesser degree.

So it sounds as if he really thinks those other guys, like; Socrates, Jesus and Weininger, are philosophers of great value. It also implies that he has been influenced by them to some degree.

Jesus doesn't seem to impress you much:

… Jesus put his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. Jesus had to eat. Jesus had to pee. Jesus died. Jesus made some big mistakes -- he trusted. He had great faith. He was a performer -- "dance, monkey boy, dance!" I feel great pity for Jesus because his image has been so besmirched, his own goddamned fault for being such a patsy for God.

Nor Weininger:

Weininger was very feminine.

Actually, you have made it rather clear that all of those chaps, including QSR, are all riddled with femininity:

Nothing gets rid of the femininity -- not just in a woman but in a man -- even in David Quinn or Kevin Solway or Dan Rowden or Nietzsche or Kierkegaard or the rest -- Jesus and so on.

Yet Solway and Quinn wrote the Cow Te Ching, Life and Death magazine, as well as separate detailed works as to the nature of Woman. All these works were written to undermine the feminine, not promote it. And I’m not sure how any of those works could be written, if those guys were stuck in the feminine, as you propose.

Quinn, Solway and Rowden, are also very big on enlightenment, and have written wads about it. They have also included in their separate works, as well as in posts on this forum, the works of Nietzsche, Weininger, Kierkegaard and Jesus. They all say, in various ways, that enlightenment is an important concept.

Your approach to enlightenment is quite pointed:

No, I do not think enlightenment is anything special.

You also go on to say that:

Enlightenment is not a prize to be won. It is not a crown. It does not give one unearned authority.

I’m not suggesting that enlightenment is a prize etc, but it must be something pretty special, for those men to make it their life’s work.

You tell us that your own enlightenment came about:

… in terms of having worked hard with results over several years

But that you still have:

many years to go and much work to do.

But if enlightenment isn’t really anything special, and the philosophers that bang on about it are really just ratty women, why would you still consider it a worthy goal?

Also, your involvement on the forum is considerable, yet you:

Ultimately…don't give a flying fuck -- whatever -- what Kelly thinks or does or what Lela thinks or does or what David Quinn thinks or does or what whoever thinks or does.

What is it that you do give “a flying fuck” about Marsha – I am truly interested to know?

Sue

Leyla Shen wrote:

I think it's more important to understand Reality perfectly than to have sex as much as I want.

Sure.

Leyla asked:

I suppose calm sex is out of the question?

A Buddha's activities are calculated on their probability for perpetuating wisdom. Having sex, Just like fucking a baby, cutting a baby in half, murdering a grannie, or expressing thoughts by typing messages to an internet forum, would be calculated as to how it'd best support wisdom. That's the question.

Kierkegaard wrote something that I find my mind turning to again and again. He tested his impulses to see from "which side" they came. If an impulse kept giving birth to standard egotism, even if it seemed superficially to perpetuate wisdom, he saw it came from Satan (that which is all evil). Yet, an impulse that brought him to despair and humility, through knowing his weakness in the light of spiritual goals, was a wiser impulse, coming from the Holy Spirit (God as the teacher).

So, while a Buddha might have no problem engaging in sexual concourse, it'd be highly likely that the other person involved might suffer unnecessarily. I think a highly conscious, sensitive student would probably get more out of a common garden variety of flirtation with a careful, thoughtful teacher. For instance, such a one might experience such hells in examining conscience and controlling instinctive irrational impulses, perhaps even rejecting the teacher in favour of personal imperatives of conscience, and yet still hold onto enough freedom of mind to rescue themself, that the lesson learnt would far outweigh actually going through the act of having sex.

Is a Buddha a man?

While ever reason, determination, commitment, the aggressive drive to remember the nature of Ultimate Reality, logic, honesty, compassion, wisdom, nonattachment and genius are clearly the domain of biological males, then the Buddha is masculine.

I think this raises the question of semantics. If the drive that causes the Buddha to use such images in order to stay warm in cold conditions also provides for the participation in a sexual act, why would keeping the body alive be more important to a Buddha than anything else? This is a dude with no ego, right?

Whoever said that the Buddha's highest priority was preserving his bodily organism? There's no semantic issue here.

Shantideva wrote the following lines because he had sacrificed all things to the highest priority of living in accord with Nature:

Although they may play with my body
And make it a source of jest and blame
Because I have given it up to them
What is the point of holding it dear?

Therefore I shall let them do anything to it
That does not cause them any harm.
And whenever anyone encounters me
May it never be meaningless for them.

This doesn't mean he ceases sleeping, eating, or maintaining thermal warmth. He treats the maintenance and control of the body as a craftsman cares for his tools. The personal challenges involved in sacrificing all things to Truth can get quite tangled. He may, as Matt Gregory wrote, be falling into the man's religion to overcome (not avoid) all fears, and be practising austerities to boost or humiliate the ego, as a way to distract his mind from emptiness. At the same time, he cannot ignore cause and effect, and pretend the bodily organism and its biological needs, doesn't exist at all.

For instance, I'm revising my homeless experiment, as my attention is being drawn away from Truth more often than towards it. This is an example of how the bodily organism's health is directly related to how wisdom can be perpetuated in Reality.

Wisdom is a product of hormones, turned away from women, to the most refined love of all.

Kelly

Well, good luck to you, Kelly Jones.

I reckon I have chosen to burn in hell, for the sake of (non-inherent) wisdom.

Right where women should be.

Kelly Jones wrote:

He may, as Matt Gregory wrote, be falling into the man's religion to overcome (not avoid) all fears, and be practising austerities to boost or humiliate the ego, as a way to distract his mind from emptiness.

I think you read a little too much into that, Kelly. I'm not enlightened, so I rarely talk about emptiness unless I refer to it explicitly. At least I don't think I do. By "man's religion" I was just trying to refer to the opposite of "woman's religion". It could refer to someone striving for emptiness or it might not, I'm not even really sure. Everything I write on here is basically an experiment or something asinine or both.

My last post was unclear, because there was actually a subtle message going on there, for my own use. It was out on a tangent not directly related to the topic, namely, how my own experiments are too high up for me at the present. I do have to step down to a lower level, and sort out some basic things.

I didn't assume by "man's religion" you meant the spiritual path. I took it as a relevant idea, and redefined it for my own use.

In this context, it'd be the same as "woman's religion", unless the bent to overcome instinctive fears, such as the loss of shelter, comfort and food, is not avoidance of what really matters. But I think it'd take some real manliness to overcome this macho mentality.




Kelly

Ego sucks.

That's cool, Kelly. I've just been wondering lately if I don't get overly caught up in persuasion, game playing and cleverness, etc. while I'm trying to make myself understood.

Kelly wrote:

Yes, I did mean that feminine traits continue largely because those with just enough masculine qualities, ie. the imagination to see that change is required, are afraid of losing their security blanket, ie. feminine belief that one inherently deserves to be comfortable.

Are you saying – possessing a degree of masculinity doesn’t make you free from the feminine, if anything, it highlights it, thereby making it easier to address?

Sue