GENIUS FORUMS

Leyla: Well, that's a very good graphic analogy. However, [in Sue's description] the owner appears to not be one of the dominoes. The power behind the kicking domino comes from something else -- "the owner." So, how does knocking down all these dominoes cause that thing to see that it has fooled itself in terms of kicking power?

Rhett: The appearance of the 'owner' as discrete is false. In actuality, the body is equally one of the dominoes. Everything presents its appearance, e.g., the mountain, the rocks, the grasses, the sky, thoughts, depression, and perhaps a knee and foot raised to rest on a log, in anticipation of the climb ahead.

Yes, I agree. I should have taken more care here and qualified my statement with what I have now put in bold and square brackets.

.

To illustrate my point:

Sue wrote:

There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

Elsewhere, Nick wrote:

I've been meaning to ask you, what was your experience like when you were "reborn as a man"? How was your mind able to escape the unconsciousness of its feminine nature? Was it a slow process of realization, or did you all of a sudden have a metaphorical brick hit you in the head that woke you up? Also what were all the feelings you experienced when you seen the world through the "eyes of masculinity" for the first time? If for some reason you don't want to discuss it over a public forum I can give you my email address. Look forward to your response.

What sort of a jerk asks this question? That’s right, one who doesn’t know the feminine mind. I take exception to the fact that he runs around with his nose up your arse, head twirling like a Spanish skirt, and professes to be conscious compared to “all women.” Hell, he doesn’t even fucking know what a woman is!

I guess Nick must be one of these unusual men born into consciousness -- kind of like a person born a Buddha, ya know? No need for a dick, even, let alone the problem of ovaries. How old do you reckon he is; do you think he works?

I wonder just how much time and testosterone he has on his hands to become a great philosopher…

.

Rhett,

Matt: I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

Rhett: So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Matt: Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

Rhett: The future has no existence at the present time, so it cannot rightly be said to exist beyond current consciousness.

Matt: That doesn't make any sense.

Rhett: It does Matt. The future is yet to manifest. To talk about it is to talk about that which has no existence.

But the property of not having yet manifested is what gives the future its existence in the first place. If the future were manifest, it would cease being the future and become the present.

Rhett: In so much as a Big Bang exists in any given consciousness, a Big Bang exists in that given consciousness. Its that simple. To conceive of some kind of 'Ultimate Big Bang' residing beyond consciousness is to entertain an error of logic, as any Big Bang that could possibly be conceived of would necessarily occur within consciousness, or to be more correct, as consciousness itself.

Matt: I agree there is no Big Bang beyond consciousness, but there is Reality beyond consciousness and this is what the Big Bang is created from in our consciousness.

Rhett: For me Reality is that which has form, Reality occurs as consciousness. Pretty much everyone else thinks of it this way too. If Reality were to be beyond consciousness, no-one could ever be conscious of it, and of course would never know anything whatsoever about it.

For me Reality is everything: consciousness, beyond consciousness, formlessness, form, everything.

Rhett: For me Big Bangs are created from unconsciousness. If they were to be created from consciousness then they would have to go to unconsciousness, and then they wouldn't be seen.

I would say everything, including the Big Bang, is created from both consciousness and things that are not consciousness.

Rhett: There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

Matt: No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

Rhett: If something is no longer appearing then it seems only sensible to say that it has disappeared.

To put that a slightly different way; if you are thinking something, then it is appearing, . . . and whenever there is a transition to thinking something else, that previous thing has disappeared and has no existence.

Matt: I'm familiar with that idea, but it's not particularly useful in this situation. I mean, you do want to eliminate your ego, don't you? It's a practical matter that needs to be dealt with in practical terms. Trying to destroy a physical object with mental concepts just doesn't work.

Rhett: Trying to destroy anything that by your definition one is not conscious of, is definitely not practical, and will not work.

We are partly conscious of it and work with that to discover more and more of it and become conscious of it.

The ego not only resides as the body seen and imagined, and even then, the body seen need not be destroyed for egotism to be destroyed.

I don't equate the ego with the body. I think it's valid to think of the ego as a part of the body, though.

Rhett: To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

Matt: What's the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Rhett: To use the aforementioned example;

Being conscious of egotism means experiencing false abstractions and depression.

Understanding egotism means that it doesn't happen.

Matt: How would you express that as a universal principle, without using any example? I'm still not clear on it.

Rhett: Consciousness of egotism is the experience of emotions and false abstractions.

Understanding of egotism means that these don't happen.

I meant without the example of egotism: what is the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Leyla Shen wrote:What sort of a jerk asks this question? That’s right, one who doesn’t know the feminine mind. I take exception to the fact that he runs around with his nose up your arse, head twirling like a Spanish skirt, and professes to be conscious compared to “all women.” Hell, he doesn’t even fucking know what a woman is!

I guess Nick must be one of these unusual men born into consciousness -- kind of like a person born a Buddha, ya know? No need for a dick, even, let alone the problem of ovaries. How old do you reckon he is; do you think he works?



.

Leyla, direct any questions or comments you have about me, towards me, your disrespectful attitude doesn't help any of your causes, it just shows your immaturity. I asked Sue about what rebirth was like, because I was curious about the idea of being "reborn as a man". The way I was hearing it spoken of sounded kind of fishy to me, and I wanted her to elaborate on it. You need to get over yourself, not everything is about women. As for my age I'm 22, and if I didn't have to work I wouldn't, unfortunately I have student loands, rent to pay, and I like to eat a lot.

Also, why are you so quick to judge me as a misogynist? I know you haven't used those exact words to describe me, but it's pretty obvious you think this. I treat all people the same, no better no worse. I speak sincerely and honestly, if this is a crime, arrest me now. If you are offended by what I said, then good, it means I'm remaining true to myself.

Leyla Shen wrote:I wonder just how much time and testosterone he has on his hands to become a great philosopher…

Hopefully enough!

Nick wrote:

Leyla, direct any questions or comments you have about me, towards me, your disrespectful attitude doesn't help any of your causes, it just shows your immaturity.

When you attain the status of God, I may consider your commands. Until then, the Lord works in mysterious ways, Nick.

“Blessed is he who is not offended in me.”

Also, why are you so quick to judge me as a misogynist?

I don’t think you are a misogynist any more than most women are.

If you are offended by what I said, then good, it means I'm remaining true to myself.

Yes, I know. And all the while you should be offending yourself. Perhaps your ego is indeed yet too fragile.

You cannot offend me -- only I can do that.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, I know. And all the while you should be offending yourself. Perhaps your ego is indeed yet too fragile.

You cannot offend me -- only I can do that.

.

I'm too honest with myself to be offended.

Nick wrote:

I'm too honest with myself to be offended.

What kind of honesty is not offended by its own ignorance?

.

.

Matt Gregory wrote:Matt: I don't agree with your definition of 'mind'. I would only consider it to contain what we're conscious of, and we're not fully conscious of our egos because if we were, our egos would disappear.

Rhett: So you think things exist beyond consciousness? How could that be so?

Matt: Well, possibilities exist. We could become conscious of things presently beyond consciousness in the future. The Big Bang existed x billion years ago because we are conscious of it today.

Rhett: The future has no existence at the present time, so it cannot rightly be said to exist beyond current consciousness.

Matt: That doesn't make any sense.

Rhett: It does Matt. The future is yet to manifest. To talk about it is to talk about that which has no existence.

Matt: But the property of not having yet manifested is what gives the future its existence in the first place. If the future were manifest, it would cease being the future and become the present.

The future only has existence as a hypothesis or prediction occurring in the present. As such the future is as much the present as anything else.

Rhett: In so much as a Big Bang exists in any given consciousness, a Big Bang exists in that given consciousness. Its that simple. To conceive of some kind of 'Ultimate Big Bang' residing beyond consciousness is to entertain an error of logic, as any Big Bang that could possibly be conceived of would necessarily occur within consciousness, or to be more correct, as consciousness itself.

Matt: I agree there is no Big Bang beyond consciousness, but there is Reality beyond consciousness and this is what the Big Bang is created from in our consciousness.

Rhett: For me Reality is that which has form, Reality occurs as consciousness. Pretty much everyone else thinks of it this way too. If Reality were to be beyond consciousness, no-one could ever be conscious of it, and of course would never know anything whatsoever about it.

Matt: For me Reality is everything: consciousness, beyond consciousness, formlessness, form, everything.

Okay, so you see that there are no lingering articles, no thing that in any way acts as a pillar?

Rhett: For me Big Bangs are created from unconsciousness. If they were as you say to be created from consciousness, then they would have to go to unconsciousness, and then they wouldn't be seen.

Matt: I would say everything, including the Big Bang, is created from both consciousness and things that are not consciousness.

Ultimately, nothing can truly be said about the source of anything, including of course a Big Bang, because any thing is just what it is and can't be looked around so to speak.

Rhett: There is necessarily consciousness of any egotism present in any given moment, otherwise it would not exist.

Matt: No, that's not right. You can't make things disappear by not thinking about them. That's like Merged Void material there.

Rhett: If something is no longer appearing then it seems only sensible to say that it has disappeared.

To put that a slightly different way; if you are thinking something, then it is appearing, . . . and whenever there is a transition to thinking something else, that previous thing has disappeared and has no existence.

Matt: I'm familiar with that idea, but it's not particularly useful in this situation. I mean, you do want to eliminate your ego, don't you? It's a practical matter that needs to be dealt with in practical terms. Trying to destroy a physical object with mental concepts just doesn't work.

Rhett: Trying to destroy anything that by your definition one is not conscious of, is definitely not practical, and will not work.

Matt: We are partly conscious of it and work with that to discover more and more of it and become conscious of it.

Not really. Egotism occurs as consciousness and can't occur otherwise. It is worked with, and keeps arising, and keeps fading away, and eventually, not a scrap more may arise.

Rhett: The ego not only resides as the body seen and imagined, and even then, the body seen need not be destroyed for egotism to be destroyed.

Matt: I don't equate the ego with the body. I think it's valid to think of the ego as a part of the body, though.

Do you mean you think of the ego as a part of the body in the same way, as say, the liver, or an ear?

Rhett: To illustrate using the above example, there was consciousness of the thought of an inherently existent self climbing a mountain, and consciousness of the depression felt. However, being conscious of the ego does not mean it is understood, or there is any effort to eradicate it.

Matt: What's the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Rhett: To use the aforementioned example;

Being conscious of egotism means experiencing false abstractions and depression.

Understanding egotism means that it doesn't happen.

Matt: How would you express that as a universal principle, without using any example? I'm still not clear on it.

Rhett: Consciousness of egotism is the experience of emotions and false abstractions.

Understanding of egotism means that these don't happen.

Matt: I meant without the example of egotism: what is the difference between being conscious of something and understanding it?

Okay. My use of the word consciousness pertains to that which occurs.

My use of the word understanding pertains to a particular set of occurences; those that accurately present causality and non-causality.


Understanding of egotism arises as accurate portrayals of ignorance, these being causative of egotism no longer arising.


.

Rhett wrote:

I imagine exploring womanliness is terrifying for a man that is yet to develop an intellectual understanding of emptiness.

Yes, prior to understanding causality, a budding thinker would more than likely find the idea of attacking the feminine as “terrifying”, because he’d be going against his own attachment to her, as well as the whole of society’s.

Conversely, for a man that has a notion of emptiness to work with and does so skillfully, learning about womanliness is deadly in a satisfying kind of way.

I’m not sure what you mean by “satisfying”?

Understanding the nature of woman is a natural consequence of understanding causality. I don't think 'satisfying' is the way I'd describe that situation. "Truthful", "wise" - something like that perhaps.

Sue: Woman has no existence apart from what man creates in his mind. If he loves her or fears her, he is equally attached to her. The only way to attack her is at the source – his mind. Prune away the attachment to status, comfort, and security, and you’ve made a good beginning at loosening the grip she has on your mind.

Generally speaking, women exist in man's mind as a female form and mostly worthless utterances. Men exist in man's mind as a male form and less regularly worthless utterances.

Yes – these are very “general” ideas, as well as very shallow ones.

Womanliness exists as the desire to secure the ego in another thing, or to obliterate the ego through obliterating consciousness. Manliness exists as wisdom.

These two definitions seem a bit wonky to me. First up “womanliness”, which I take you to mean the ‘feminine’, doesn’t “desire” or will anything. ‘She’, that exists in both males and females, is at the mercy of consciousness. Only consciousness desires and wills her towards attachments and unconsciousness, or away from them.

Secondly - "manliness", or masculinity "exists as wisdom", is a meaningless statement. Masculinity is often known for its irrationality due to it being weakened and polluted by the feminine. In a more developed and pure form it can drive an individual towards wisdom - but this is extremely rare.

Loving women and fearing women shows key differences in mentality. If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is her.

Most men’s minds are under the sway of the world as much as any woman is. Being attached to “control”, “honesty” and “helping people” because of an attachment to “fearing women” isn’t what I’d call a very wise way to go about things. Instead - a strong attachment to Truth washes all those gross attachments away.

Being subject to evolutionary urges pushing him in her direction, outside of his 'control', can be quite fear inducing. If a man can honestly say he is simply not interested when a woman makes him an offer, wishing also to thwart her desires for her sake, he is a long way developed.

Yes, a man just has to remind himself that any emotional or physical attachment he feels towards woman – even wanting to “thwart her desires” – is an act of his own feminine weakness. That’ll quickly thwart his desires.

Attachment to status, comfort and security, is a problem, as for attachment to being an insecure bum. However, it pays to be careful about some of these, because when attachment has been severed some necessarily come into play as part of any greater purpose. Greatness is unlikely to be achieved by someone no-one listens to, someone that is uncomfortable in respect to basic necessities, and someone who finds themself understandably thinking how to thwart the next bomb dropped in the war zone rather than its root in ignorance.

Of course, each man must know his own weaknesses and strengths and do the best he can with them, but concern about possessing “greatness” isn’t something I’d consider at all important. Being in a relationship with the Infinite doesn't mean you aquire something, or for that matter, lose something - you're simply uncovering what you have always been, all along.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by "greatness", because when you consider the Great Men who have been: Hakuin, Diogingnese, Kierkegaard, Jesus, etc, you see a motley bunch of blokes that most people wouldn’t go out of their way to spit upon. The same goes for the Great Men of today: Quinn, Rowden and Solway – “dole-bludging misogynistic scum-bags” is the way most people would describe them. Why do you think these guys are thought of like this? Do you think they need to ‘lift’ their act to get more status, and in that way attract more interest in their ideas and works?

If one knew the feminine through and through, would that not be complete knowledge, in which case there would be no femininity left? That is the way i would see it. In that case feminine related tools would no longer be employed for one's personal development.

To begin to attack her, you first need to know her. Know her well, and the less chance of you fooling yourself that you are clear of her. Delusions are slippery, and they run deep – start chipping away at them first with a pick axe, then move in the bulldozer.

The technique i elucidated, if it has any worth, may be of worth at a different stage in a female path versus a male path. That might need some thinking about. It may be that a time will come where greater focus ought be placed on the unique elements of females pursuing a spiritual path.

There are not two “paths”, one coloured blue and the other coloured pink. There is only one path, upon which only the strongest and most dedicated of men travel.

Rhett: What i am offering is really just a converse application of a technique used so commonly here. Using womanliness as a tool to increase consciousness, and using womanliness as a tool to decrease the ego.

Sue: The feminine (womanliness) stands in man’s way to greatness – just destroy those attachments which allow her to live in your mind, and be done with her.

Yes, but perhaps the word 'just' would best be dropped.

Why? Setting your mind to the job at hand, and getting on with it is plain and simple. You’ve got the house number, the name of the street and suburb – start bulldozing.

Sue: There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

As i see it there is no existence in the feminine. The feminine is unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is thus never known. There is only the lack of consciousness.

Will you walk into my parlour? said the spider to the fly.
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy,
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there.

Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair, can ne'er come down again.

Alas, the fly is captured by the spider, because it dazzles the little fly into submission. Yes, a cautionary tale to be taken very seriously indeed.

-
Sue

I agree.

Rhett's quest is noble but he should be careful where he steps.

Leyla Shen wrote:Nick wrote:

I'm too honest with myself to be offended.

What kind of honesty is not offended by its own ignorance?

.

How can one be offended by their own ignorance? If it were in fact ignorance, they would not be conscious of it, making it impossible for them to become offended.

Leyla wrote:

Elsewhere (To The Mystical Geniuses thread), Nick wrote to Sue: I've been meaning to ask you, what was your experience like when you were "reborn as a man"? How was your mind able to escape the unconsciousness of its feminine nature? Was it a slow process of realization, or did you all of a sudden have a metaphorical brick hit you in the head that woke you up? Also what were all the feelings you experienced when you seen the world through the "eyes of masculinity" for the first time? If for some reason you don't want to discuss it over a public forum I can give you my email address. Look forward to your response.

What sort of a jerk asks this question?

It’s not unusual for people to divide the sexes into two separate units with no over-lapping of any sorts. It is difficult for most people to understand just how fluid the sexes really are.

When you approved of what I wrote below -

"There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends."

- was that because you agree that each person has, to varying degrees, both sexes influencing their world view?

That’s right, one who doesn’t know the feminine mind. I take exception to the fact that he runs around with his nose up your arse, head twirling like a Spanish skirt, and professes to be conscious compared to “all women.” Hell, he doesn’t even fucking know what a woman is!

By “all women” I take it Nick would have been referring to Woman, and not all females. Well, if that be the case, then he could quite easily “profess to be conscious compared to ‘all women’”, as his work shows that he values to some degree rationality and logic. His knowledge about the feminine is developing slowly, but that is inevitable, knowing how capricious and slippery her nature is.

I guess Nick must be one of these unusual men born into consciousness -- kind of like a person born a Buddha, ya know? No need for a dick, even, let alone the problem of ovaries. How old do you reckon he is; do you think he works?

I wonder just how much time and testosterone he has on his hands to become a great philosopher…

I note that he tells you that he is 22 years old, and that he has a job. How does this information help you examine Nick’s attachment to the feminine? What criteria are you using to exam his, and perhaps other people’s attachment? Have you got plans to use this study to assist your progress in attacking the feminine part of your own mind? Perhaps you might use this study to write some posts outlining your thoughts on the feminine and how best to dispose of her.

-
Sue

.

Sue writes:

The same goes for the Great Men of today: Quinn, Rowden and Solway . . .

I would be curious to know how this lands on the ears of the aforementioned people, capital letters and all. Personally, I find all such unequivocal rhapsodizing as quite distasteful and projected from a weak, romantic nature.

.

Nick wrote:

How can one be offended by their own ignorance?

How can one be honest if they are not? Are you intentionally implying that honesty is something that kind of just magically occurs -- like, maybe through the genes?

If it were in fact ignorance, they would not be conscious of it, making it impossible for them to become offended.

That’s right.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Nick wrote:

How can one be offended by their own ignorance?

How can one be honest if they are not?

Like I said, ignorance would not be within one's consciousness for them to be offended. One might be ashamed or disgusted upon discovering their ignorance, but at that very moment, it is no longer ignorance. Although if the person chooses to think and act similiarly to what they were like when they were still ignorant, then that's just plain evil.

N: How can one be offended by their own ignorance?

L: How can one be honest if they are not?

N: Like I said, ignorance would not be within one's consciousness for them to be offended.

Then I place no value in your brand of honesty or lack of offence -- or, in fact, anything concluded from it as a consequence, such as this:

N: One might be ashamed or disgusted upon discovering their ignorance, but at that very moment, it is no longer ignorance.

Oh, wait a minute, you mean when honesty (defined as freedom from deception or fraud) is offended by its ignorance?

N: Although if the person chooses to think and act similiarly to what they were like when they were still ignorant, then that's just plain evil.

So, having had some experience, obviously, with honesty, ignorance and the consequent disgust, of what philosophical value is the following statement:

Nick wrote:

I'm too honest with myself to be offended.

.

Leyla Shen wrote:
So, having had some experience, obviously, with honesty, ignorance and the consequent disgust, of what philosophical value is the following statement:

Nick wrote:

I'm too honest with myself to be offended.

.

Meaning that through my relentless and brutal honesty I have exposed the ignorance of myself and others, to myself. By rectifying the situation of my former ignorance, I am no longer offended by it, nor am I personally offended with the ignorance of others. Afterall, who is born and wishes to be ignorant?

You earlier post:

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, I know. And all the while you should be offending yourself. Perhaps your ego is indeed yet too fragile.

Also, if my ego is so fragile then that should mean I do get offended easily, not as a reason for why I don't get offended. You seem to be getting awfully excited at different points through out this thread, with all this male>female talk. Are you sure you aren't feeling offended, Leyla?

Hello, again, oh brutally honest one:

Meaning that through my relentless and brutal honesty I have exposed the ignorance of myself and others, to myself. By rectifying the situation of my former ignorance, I am no longer offended by it, nor am I personally offended with the ignorance of others. Afterall, who is born and wishes to be ignorant?

You are ignoring (from ignorance, naturally) the point, and the question. Focus, your replies lack substance and profound insight. I'm not interested in having discussions that centre around mutual agreement. Usually, if I agree with a post, it is more than enough to read it.

The total sum of wisdom to be philosophically gleaned from "I'm too honest with myself to be offended" is "After all, who is born and wishes to be ignorant"? I reckon my 11-year-old daughter has figured that one out.

Or, are you staking a claim to not only to manhood, but fully enlightened Buddhahood as well?

Leyla Shen wrote: Yes, I know. And all the while you should be offending yourself. Perhaps your ego is indeed yet too fragile.

Nick wrote: Also, if my ego is so fragile then that should mean I do get offended easily, not as a reason for why I don't get offended.

That depends on what you mean by ego. But, that will have to wait for another night. For tonight, however, how would you know when your lack of offence is caused by this (don‘t go unconsciously circular on me, now):

Nick: If it were in fact ignorance, they would not be conscious of it, making it impossible for them to become offended.

Nick also wrote:

You seem to be getting awfully excited at different points through out this thread, with all this male>female talk. Are you sure you aren't feeling offended, Leyla?

[irony]Absolutely. But for different reasons than you, apparently.[/irony]

.

Pye wrote:

Sue: The same goes for the Great Men of today: Quinn, Rowden and Solway . . .

Pye: I would be curious to know how this lands on the ears of the aforementioned people, capital letters and all. Personally, I find all such unequivocal rhapsodizing as quite distasteful and projected from a weak, romantic nature.

Well, it makes a change from “dole-bludging misogynistic scum-bag”!

On a personal level, it doesn't really bother me how people describe me - and believe me, I have been called everything under the sun, both good and bad. It's all just water off a duck's back to me.

But I suppose Sue needs to be careful not to create the misleading perception that she is engaging in hero-worship. Sue is a very idealistic and romantic person by nature, and her writing style is very much "old-school". She consistently applies the same kind of writing style, with capital letters and all, throughout her discourse, regardless of the subject matter at hand. So I see her effusive descriptions more as a reflection of the high value she places on the ideal of Truth, more than anything else. But I agree that others might not see it that way.

It can be a fine line. For example, when I praise Kierkegaard to the skies, am I doing it out of hero-worship or because his life and his words reflect the high value that I place on Truth? It ultimately depends on my level of wisdom.

-

Leyla Shen wrote:Hello, again, oh brutally honest one,
You are ignoring (from ignorance, naturally) the point, and the question. Focus, your replies lack substance and profound insight. I'm not interested in having discussions that centre around mutual agreement. Usually, if I agree with a post, it is more than enough to read it.

The total sum of wisdom to be philosophically gleaned from "I'm too honest with myself to be offended" is "After all, who is born and wishes to be ignorant"? I reckon my 11-year-old daughter has figured that one out.

Or, are you staking a claim to not only to manhood, but fully enlightened Buddhahood as well?

Leyla Shen wrote: Yes, I know. And all the while you should be offending yourself. Perhaps your ego is indeed yet too fragile.

Nick wrote: Also, if my ego is so fragile then that should mean I do get offended easily, not as a reason for why I don't get offended.

That depends on what you mean by ego. But, that will have to wait for another night. For tonight, however, how would you know when your lack of offence is caused by this (don‘t go unconsciously circular on me, now):

Nick: If it were in fact ignorance, they would not be conscious of it, making it impossible for them to become offended.

Alright, here's a simple answer, honesty=lack of ignorance=lack of being offended.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Nick also wrote:
You seem to be getting awfully excited at different points through out this thread, with all this male>female talk. Are you sure you aren't feeling offended, Leyla?

[irony]Absolutely. But for different reasons than you, apparently.[/irony]

.

I already told you I'm not offended. You're making less and less sense now, and boring the hell outta me with this discussion.

.

Well that's a sane response, David; perhaps saner than myself. I'm as much interested in my own reaction to this, then, perhaps to some degree its efficacy to the forum (to the least degree Sue herself). I sent a former student packing once who showed up yearly in the mail with his latest paean rhaposodizing the impact I had on his life. Prior to that, I would ask him instead if he wanted to write to me, to write what thought-work he was currently doing, and a year later, another one of these would show up. I asked him not to bother me with it again.

I don't mind a moment of gratitude from a student, but my highest satisfaction is seeing them blow right past me into their fullest subjective seizure. Aside from a general distaste for worshipful attitudes, I think poorly of the student who gets through the deepest messages in my teaching/class, and comes out with this uxorious relationship to me. More to the point, I then feel I haven't done the work properly. That's all this reminded me of. This distaste of mine is solid, organic, if you will; cleanly felt. I have not, over the years, been able to shrug it off as you do here. Maybe someday will, but it's hard for me to get past the thought in this situation that something has folded back on itself, and possibly even perilously.

Maybe Kevin and Dan will register their responses to being called "Great Men," too.

.

.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Rhett: Conversely, for a man that has a notion of emptiness to work with and does so skillfully, learning about womanliness is deadly in a satisfying kind of way.

Sue: I’m not sure what you mean by “satisfying”? Understanding the nature of woman is a natural consequence of understanding causality. I don't think 'satisfying' is the way I'd describe that situation. "Truthful", "wise" - something like that perhaps.

For someone focused upon ego death, learning about womanliness and the effect it has is very satisfying.

Rhett: Womanliness exists as the desire to secure the ego in another thing, or to obliterate the ego through obliterating consciousness. Manliness exists as wisdom.

Sue: These two definitions seem a bit wonky to me. First up “womanliness”, which I take you to mean the ‘feminine’, doesn’t “desire” or will anything. ‘She’, that exists in both males and females, is at the mercy of consciousness. Only consciousness desires and wills her towards attachments and unconsciousness, or away from them.

I think you're trying to go too far with this Sue, but let's see what we can do.

The desires i spoke of exist in mind, expressed by women and men, so whilst i spoke of the desires as womanly, i did so acknowledging them as being conscious via a mind.

Sue: Secondly - "manliness", or masculinity "exists as wisdom", is a meaningless statement. Masculinity is often known for its irrationality due to it being weaked and polluted by the feminine. In a more developed and pure form it can drive an individual towards wisdom - but this is extremely rare.

When i related manliness to wisdom i was talking about the essential characteristic of man, in its purest form.

Manliness could otherwise be related to thinking, but what good is thinking if wisdom is not arrived at? Not much, hence my use only of the term wisdom.

Rhett: Loving women and fearing women shows key differences in mentality. If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is to her.

Sue: Most men’s minds are under the sway of the world as much as any woman is. Being attached to “control”, “honesty” and “helping people” because of an attachment to “fearing women” isn’t what I’d call a very wise way to go about things. Instead - a strong attachment to Truth washes all those gross attachments away.

I disagree with your statement that "Most men’s minds are under the sway of the world as much as any woman is". In my experience males always have at least some sense of individuality and purpose, whereas women rarely do.

You've misread my comment, i said "If a man fears women it could be because he is attached to control, honesty, helping people, and the like, more so than he is to her". This means i am suggesting the example man's fear of women is a result of him being attached to control, honesty, etc, not the cause as you say. I agree with you that the example i offered is not of a wise person. I was not offering an analysis of a wise person.

Rhett: Attachment to status, comfort and security, is a problem, as for attachment to being an insecure bum. However, it pays to be careful about some of these, because when attachment has been severed, some necessarily come into play as part of any greater purpose. Greatness is unlikely to be achieved by someone no-one listens to, someone that is uncomfortable in respect to basic necessities, and someone who finds themself (understandably) thinking how to thwart the next bomb dropped in the war zone, rather than its root in ignorance.

Sue: Of course, each man must know his own weaknesses and strengths and do the best he can with them, but concern about possessing “greatness” isn’t something I’d consider at all important. Being in a relationship with the Infinite doesn't mean you aquire something, or for that matter, lose something - you're simply uncovering what you have always been, all along.

So, I'm not sure what you mean by "greatness", because when you consider the Great Men who have been: Hakuin, Diogingnese, Kierkegaard, Jesus, etc, you see a motley bunch of blokes that most people wouldn’t go out of their way to spit upon. The same goes for the Great Men of today: Quinn, Rowden and Solway – “dole-bludging misogynistic scum-bags” is the way most people would describe them. Why do you think these guys are thought of like this? Do you think they need to ‘lift’ their act to get more status, and in that way attract more interest in their ideas and works?

I personally attribute varying levels of greatness, or status, or you might simply say value, upon the teachings of wise men. Others may hold opposing views.

In some circles equal concern ought be placed on the practice of seeing removal from society and society's disapproval as badges of honour. It could be argued that Siddartha was the greatest of wise men, possibly having spurred the creation of by far the greatest number of wise works and civilised societies. May we not toss the next Siddartha into a far away cave, or restricted avenue of society, without damn good reason.

Rhett: If one knew the feminine through and through, would that not be complete knowledge, in which case there would be no femininity left? That is the way i would see it. In that case feminine related tools would no longer be employed for one's personal development.

Sue: To begin to attack her, you first need to know her. Know her well, and the less chance of you fooling yourself that you are clear of her. Delusions are slippery, and they run deep – start chipping away at them first with a pick axe, then move in the bulldozer.

That is good general advice. It would sit better in front of what i wrote.

Rhett: The technique i elucidated, if it has any worth, may be of worth at a different stage in a female path versus a male path. That might need some thinking about. It may be that a time will come where greater focus ought be placed on the unique elements of females pursuing a spiritual path.

Sue: There are not two “paths”, one coloured blue and the other coloured pink. There is only one path, upon which only the strongest and most dedicated of men travel.

Tell me Sue, how do you think people would react to the physical presence of a fully-male female?

Sue: There’s always more to be said about the feminine. Man’s mind is often so full of her, he often doesn’t know where he begins and she ends.

Rhett: As i see it there is no existence in the feminine. The feminine is unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is thus never known. There is only the lack of consciousness.

Sue: Will you walk into my parlour? said the spider to the fly.
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy,
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there.

Oh no, no, said the little Fly, to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair, can ne'er come down again.

Alas, the fly is captured by the spider, because it dazzles the little fly into submission. Yes, a cautionary tale to be taken very seriously indeed.

Do you ever still relate to the spider Sue?


.

Nick wrote:

I already told you I'm not offended. You're making less and less sense now, [snip]

Not surprising.

...and boring the hell outta me with this discussion.

Luckily, I'm not here for the purpose of entertaining your sorry arse.

.

Rhett Hamilton wrote:

Consciousness of egotism is the experience of emotions and false abstractions.

Then, when we define masculinity as consciousness we see that what is in fact generally held as femininity, is not in fact femininity at all.

When we talk of consciousness, it is the experience or sense of a thing as opposed to the understanding of it. Thus, the female either (1) exists and is therefore quite conscious of truth since truth exists, but she does not understand it; or (2) she is a false abstraction.

You say, elsewhere:

As i see it there is no existence in the feminine. The feminine is unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is thus never known. There is only the lack of consciousness.

These two ideas are contradictory. There can be no motion without consciousness (as you describe it above) of some type of stimuli.

[Edit: replaced the word "action" with "motion."]

.

Pye wrote:Maybe Kevin and Dan will register their responses to being called "Great Men," too.

I think that, in this day and age, anyone who has some deep and far-reaching thoughts which penetrate to the core of Truth, and provided they are consistent with it, can be called "Great".

It just means that they were fortunate enough to be the recipients of causes which resulted in them becoming wise.

If the person using the word "Great" doesn't mean that, then there might well be a problem.