I've seen Lenz in person. Jim knows next to shoe leather about TB.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "TurquoiseB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:23 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is enlightenment sexist?


> --- In [email protected], "llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Fuck Lenz RIP, no offense intended but he was less than 
>> a nobody because he just baffled you fuckers with bullshit 
>> which none of you can get out of your mind as if that 
>> illusion made some bit of difference.
> 
> Not had your coffee yet today, Llun?  :-)
> 
> I *get* it. You don't like the guy, having heard stories
> about him you didn't like. Some of those stories are true,
> and even if all of them were true, he still offered some
> very real knowledge and experiences to those who studied
> with him. Me, I'm comfortable with regarding him as a 
> guy with problems who nonetheless taught me some useful
> things about spiritual development. I feel the same way
> about Maharishi. 
> 
>> Women reach enlightenment instantaneously just as do men...
> 
> But *far* fewer women realize enlightenment than men.
> That has been true in every era, and still seems to
> be true today. I think the Rama guy had a clue or two 
> as to why that is.
> 
>> ...you must name your enlightenment first to find the 
>> lineage where women still reign and there are plenty, 
>> in India.  
> 
> "Where women reign" is not the issue. Where a large
> number of the women *students* realize their enlight-
> enment is. Name one tradition where that is true. 
> I'll wait.
> 
>> Whole cults centered around the supremacy of the 
>> female, and if any of you spent a day at Shakti Sadana 
>> you would meet plenty of enlightened women. 
> 
> *I* would not be so foolish as to meet someone and
> consider them enlightened, without, say, meditating
> with them quite a few times, in different situations
> and environments. If you have lower standards, you 
> can consider as many people enlightened as you want. 
> 
>> So screw this lecture. It's as lame as Lenz. And as 
>> dead an issue.
> 
> The guy's daid all right. So will you be, and much
> sooner than you'd like. So it goes...  :-)
> 
> Remember back to when you almost stormed off this
> group in a huff because Jim was doing a troll thang
> about Tibetan Buddhism? At that time you were all
> self-righteous posturing about how lowvibe it was
> to rank on some study you'd never undertaken 
> personally and didn't understand. What has changed
> in the last few weeks since then that enables you 
> to rank on someone you never met or studied with, 
> eh?  :-)
> 
> Hint: you just woke up needing to rant, and the
> mention of someone you don't like gave you that
> opportunity. Unlike you (in your previous rants
> following Jim's posts), I'm not going to take
> either your likes and dislikes or your rants
> personally and threaten to storm off the group.
> What you think of the Rama guy doesn't really
> affect me one way or another. I have enough
> on my plate just figuring out what *I* think
> of him.  :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to