--- In [email protected], "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I suspect in the mood you're in at the moment, > > anything I could say would only piss you off > > more, so I'll just note that from my perspective, > > it appears you misread just about everything > > I wrote. > > > > ----Strange you perceive me that way. > > Oh? > > <snip> > > > Personally, I am only really about liberation. All the fancy > > houses, gigantic penile monuments, gigantic penile crowning > > adventures, huge spurting yagyas and other phallic overkill I can > > perform myself, on a scale I can live with. > > > > > > Maybe being a woman, you are attracted, however, to the grandious. > > ----That's not a mean thing to say if it's true. There's no way I could know that.
It's sexist and belittling. And not only could you not know that, you have to reason to even *suspect* that. I haven't been promoting any of MMY's grandiosities. They certainly aren't the aspect of TM I find interesting or admirable. > We're all friends here right? Well, many of us are! > I mean, it's like with men with big guns, big hats, freaky ties, > men who carry huge rolls of cash. That's all about sexual > displacement. Men who are OK with their sexuality need not show any > telltale signs of their masculinity. > > So conversely, would you be satisfied with a guru who had only five > followers, erected no monuments, had no books, had taught only one > thing, but that thing well. Etc... It's just a theory. If his or her teaching suited me as well as MMY's does, sure. > In reality there's nothing that isn't about sex, either outright or > on a subtle level. God is the Lingam, and the Yoni, etc... Maybe so, but personally I'd rather talk about sex *qua* sex and talk about other things in terms of whatever they're about other than sex. Sometimes it's interesting to make the connection, but if all you do is reduce everything to sex, it gets boring, IMHO. <snip> > More simply, the person who wants to erect, or who respects huge > buildings feels powerless, as if they couldn't attain a hard-on. > Much of this could be penis envy. I'm not much of a psychologist. It's a pretty common speculation. New Yorkers often refer to Donald Trump's building projects as his "erections," intending the double meaning. > I'm sorry, I just feel that since you argue circles with people > that you need some counseling. It's not that I'm mad or hateful, > even. Just curious what the need is to be right like that? I enjoy debating. It's exercise for the brain. I also think when folks are trying to figure out what's what, as most of us are, it helps to get as many things as we can as "right" as possible. (Fantasizing and speculating wildly are fun too, but they shouldn't be confused with figuring out what's what. Although sometimes one does lead to the other.) But why would you think enjoying debate is a malady that requires counseling? > Or maybe you argue with Barry because you really hate him. Don't get me started on why I argue with Barry. <snip> > Not recognizing sexuality as all pervasive is ignoring laws which superceed any creed of dvaita or advaita. OK, so let's stipulate that sexuality is all-pervasive. Now what? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
