GENIUS FORUMS

This is a transcript of an interesting lecture given by Yogi Bhajan in 1977 called What is a Woman?

I have several comments to add later, but I'd like for the piece to stand alone for a day first.

David Quinn, I know that you have only given Laird a short time to wrap up his affairs here before leaving, but I ask that you please allow him to stay on this thread. I'm sure you would agree that this is a topic that he has much interest in. Personally, I wonder if the two of you might even agree on the accuracy of this lecture.

[My Impression? A great deal of verbiage, and very little actually said. The Yogis are good at that, quite often.]

Yogi Bhajan wrote:When you are told that you see the light through the woman that does not mean anything but one thing: that you see the transparent personality of the woman.

I don't know what to make of that, but it reminds me of the words of Nice Pete.

Yogi Bhajan - When you are told that you see the light through the woman that does not mean anything but one thing: that you see the transparent personality of the woman.

-Dave-
I don't know what to make of that,

-tomas-
Yup, that is the one sentence that threw me a loop, too.

The key word being "transparent".

trans-parent

trans

parent

transport

parentage (parenting) ... parental?


'transparent person'

Mother Earth

We spring from her, as her water breaks.

Girl in bikini splashing about

The boy sit along the seashore waiting for the damsel in distress

Help me ... help me ... !

Lean on me...

Boy takes

Girl cedes



Tomas


7

.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:This is a transcript of an interesting lecture given by Yogi Bhajan in 1977 called What is a Woman?

I have several comments to add later, but I'd like for the piece to stand alone for a day first.

David Quinn, I know that you have only given Laird a short time to wrap up his affairs here before leaving, but I ask that you please allow him to stay on this thread. I'm sure you would agree that this is a topic that he has much interest in. Personally, I wonder if the two of you might even agree on the accuracy of this lecture.

My God, what a rambler. Obviously his Kundalini exercises didn't succeed in curing his verbal diarrhoea! I couldn't even make it through the first half of it; it seemed to get progressively more boring with each excruciating sentence.

No, sorry, Laird's going. If you want him to participate in a thread such as this, then post it on another site.

-

So that it's on record, whilst I agree with David's assessment of Laird's contributions I don't agree with moving him on.

However, that's a decision David is free to make.

Not particularly just, if you ask me.

Has anyone read that entire piece? If so, can you tell me if it's worth the effort. I only got a third the way through first time round.

About the same here. If they got rid of the thinking time platitudes, it would be one paragraph.

Dan Rowden wrote:Has anyone read that entire piece? If so, can you tell me if it's worth the effort. I only got a third the way through first time round.

I read the whole thing. Most of the middle is useless to this forum, and soon I'll be quoting the good parts - so it can be skipped.

First comment I'll make is that this piece seemed to be the least favorable thing that Yogi Bhajan has said in regards to women. His devotees bill him as being the biggest supporter of women's rights that there ever was. I wondered if I read the linked piece with a mind tinged with the distaste that I got from the Woman philosophy - but also recalled that Quinn, Rowden, and Solway have considered themselves big supporters of women's rights (despite the title of Kevin's brainchild "Misogyny Unlimited"). Also personally, all 3 behave very respectfully with females. Finally, in David's Woman piece, he seems to equate women with all that is desirable at base - which is similar to what Yogi Bhajan was saying in this piece.

The differences in their philosophies seem to be that Bhajan believed that women not behaving their best are highly destructive, especially to the male. Quinn seems to have personified all such women as Woman. Bhajan believed that women at their best enhance men. Quinn seems to think that the only good woman is a man, and stated that he is mostly woman. Bhajan stated near the end of this piece "A woman who is not a woman, and a man who is not a man are handicapped individuals."

I propose that it is better for a woman to be a good woman than a poor excuse for a man. In order for that to be recognized as true, one must recognize that there are qualities that are good for a woman to have - or desist from assigning qualifiers to characteristics (good or bad), and just recognize them for what they are.

The differences in their philosophies seem to be that Bhajan believed that women not behaving their best are highly destructive, especially to the male.

Aren't men who are not behaving at their best even more highly destructive? And they seem to be destructive especially with women. More men rape and kill women than women do either to men or women, and men certainly rape women more than they do to other men.

His devotees bill him as being the biggest supporter of women's rights that there ever was.

This is clearly not true. I don't know who the biggest supporter of women's of all time was, but common sense would tell you it was not a man but a woman.

This article sounds like somethin Borat would come up with, only less funny.

brokenhead wrote:

The differences in their philosophies seem to be that Bhajan believed that women not behaving their best are highly destructive, especially to the male.

Aren't men who are not behaving at their best even more highly destructive? And they seem to be destructive especially with women. More men rape and kill women than women do either to men or women, and men certainly rape women more than they do to other men.

I agree with you about more men raping and killing, but that is not reflective of what I meant. Perhaps I didn't phrase this well enough. Poorly behaving women tend to cause more destruction to a male than they tend to cause another female. Women can kill women just as dead as they can kill a man, but there are some things worse than death. A woman can wage an emotional attack that would leave a man just as emotionally defenseless as a woman is physically defenseless against a man. A woman's emotional attack against another woman, on the other hand, is more evenly matched - like a physical fight between 2 men is more evenly matched than between a man and a woman.

The same emotional strength that can be misdirected into tearing a man down can be directed into building a man up like he could not be without a woman's help - just like there are physical achievements that women could not achieve the same without a man's help. Men can do well enough without women, and even be happy enough, just as women can do fine without men. The thing is that each can do even better with good examples of the opposite gender, just as each is better off alone than with bad examples of the opposite gender.

So Laird is asked to leave and tomas gets the seal of approval? Okay!!

Helm,

Tomas does not have my seal of approval, however his behaviour and posting style is not sufficient to earn my admin ire.

Besides which, Helm, I really don't care about the opinions of anyone from Olio. The abuse you hurl at this place in that Den of Iniquity is such that I surprise even myself that I tolerate your presence here. Make some arguments or shut up. At least Robert makes that effort.

Dan Rowden wrote:Helm,

Tomas does not have my seal of approval, however his behaviour and posting style is not sufficient to earn my admin ire.

Besides which, Helm, I really don't care about the opinions of anyone from Olio. The abuse you hurl at this place in that Den of Iniquity is such that I surprise even myself that I tolerate your presence here. Make some arguments or shut up. At least Robert makes that effort.

It's arguable however that for his efforts Robert ever gets much in the way of direct answer. One of your more recent responses, Dan, was the attempt to redefine the meaning of 'appeal to authority' so that at Genius Forum the reasonable use of authority should be seen in an entirely different way. Now at the Den of Iniquity we certainly have our faults, e.g., being iniquitous, but we never play hard and fast with the rules of reasonable discourse in order to rig the game in our favour.

Also, I take exception to your attempts to taint Olio by associating us with that Helm person. How low will you stoop, Dan?

Poor Helm, no-one wants to know him.

I certainly don't. I'll tell him in IRC.