[FairfieldLife] Re: M version and others
MMY BG CH4 V14 Commentary ...knowledge of the essential nature of the divine Being, personified by Lord Krishna, who is beyond the relative and the Absolute, beyond the Unity of Being and the diversity of creation, but holds within Himself the fullness of both. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, yifuxero yifux...@... wrote: right, of course. It's true that AC Bhaktivedanta put Krishna first, ahead of the impersonal Absolute. That's why I discard his teachings as being false, along with that other dualist from Barsana Dham. But one can choose to retain a copy of false teachings, since there's plenty of that in the Bible (imo). For the record, I'm a Buddhist foremost; and fully respect - in advance - any questions/criticisms and objections the Skeptics may have regarding any pov whatsoever. For those demanding proof of what's true vs false,; I'll get back to you later on that. My first Buddhist teacher Hsuan Hua probably has never read the Gita. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@ wrote: Who keeps a copy of As-It-Is around except Hari K. or raw beginners who got their copy at the airport in 1976? cardemaister: I think everyone, even down in Texas, should have a copy of it! It would be more likely for someone 'down in Texas' to have a copy, than up in Finland! That's becuase here in Texas we have numerous ISKCON Temples and other Vaishnava seats of learning where people can actually study these ideas and put them into practice, instead of just reading them in a book. But, A.C.'s edition is one of the few editions of the Bhagavad Gita that give the original Sanskrit, a translation, the word-for-word transliteration AND an erudite purport. In the Vaishnava Vedanta tradition expounded in Vyasa's Bhagavad Gita, Ishvara is equated with the Transcendental Absolute. Beginning on page 9 of his introduction to Bhagavad Gita-As It ia, Swami Bhaktivedanta explains in copious detail how The position of Isvara is that of supreme conciousness. And, on page 10 ...the Paramatman, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is living in everyone's heart as Isvara... Read more: Subject: TM: The Highest First! Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: June 17, 2004 http://tinyurl.com/26k5vl5 Subject: TM in the Hindu Scriptures Author: Willytex Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental, alt.yoga, alt.meditation Date: August 26, 2003 http://tinyurl.com/2dlbyoz
[FairfieldLife] Re: please advise me on technique - mantras, experiences
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, janosmelocco janosmelo...@... wrote: Hi all, I wrote a fairly long opening post - but I realized I would post it only if there are some people who could answer me with honest deliberation. I will summarize the essence: my TM technique stopped working for me after about 20 years. I miss it sorely. Please don't take this lightly, I have meditated close to 30 years, been a TM sidha since 92 - most of my family learned TM or even sidhis. Some got AT as well, my mom went to see SCI several times and I translated stuff for the local TMO for years. I am a practicing Indian astrologer BTW. Let me recap what my question is about. Somehow, my basic meditation technique changed over the years, and since about 2001-2002 it has not been good at all - sometimes I felt it was downright unpleasant and destructive to my everyday life. While TM was the single greatest factor in stabilizing my life and making it colorful for over two decades, during the 21st century I gradually got to the point where I felt I should not do it at all â sidhi sutras are OK, other traditional (long japa) mantras are also good, but every time I did TM, someone in my family acted like literally possessed. I felt weird and nervous - usually I concluded it was just a wasting of my time. Now I am not talking about a few times or days or weeks - a little over eight years. A psychologist that did Hellinger family therapy with me and my wife told us around 2005 that as hard as it could be, for a few years we would have to contemplate skipping âdeep meditationâ and stick to other, more superficial styles of connection with the absolute â such as prayer, Zen or other awake techniques that keep you on the surface. Movement techniques of consciousness such as tâai chi etc. The reason she gave was one we both principally agreed with â that we sort of opened doors by deep meditation that should not be left open all the time, and some forces entered that were very disturbing to our family unit. This psychologist that said this did not say this lightly, and she is not anti-meditation â she meditates herself in Buddhist style and her partner is a TM sidha, which she accepts with joy. She said this after several years of trying to screen off an unpleasant psychic effect that manifested itself in my second wife (who is a Hatha Yoga teacher BTW). I asked her many times if this was her opinion of my entire TM past â as I know she is quite critical of sects and cults. Turned out that it is not, she thought that â based on seeing my subconscious played out by others in the group â that it had been most helpful that I did TM through thick and thin for decades, and she also added that she hoped it would be soon when both of us could meditate again without any foreign forces intervening. As it was in 2006 or 2007, she said it was not safe for a while â it was our decision. For a while I did not quite believe her and thought â âwell, you may know a little about meditation, but you certainly donât know TM from firsthand experience, and certainly it has been much easier for me so far since I had learned it at a fairly tender age.â I tested this out almost a hundred times, and up till recently she was proven right. After a few hundred times when either my wife would suddenly act like a VERY severe case of PMS without anybody giving her a cause â or if she felt OK, I would feel quite nervous and barely able to contain myself, I gave up. Mind you, this does not involve the sidhi sutras, nor simply resting â as a several-decades-long meditator, sometimes I just had to lie down or close my eyes and some flashes of awake TC would hit me â no problem. I could do sidhis and get no possession problems. However, it is just not the same feeling any more. I would also get TC experiences and âunstressingâ while simply listening to music or just resting if I was tired. (Come to think of it, I have been dissatisfied with MMYâs explanations of it since I learned of them about seven years after my initiation.) It is just not the same since I do not do sitting meditation â just like when I learned of this type use of music, I realized that it was not the music itself â it was the fact that I had done TM before and then even listening to music was different. I will write more on my meditation backgound or answer questions if I see there is valuable reaction. I am not interested in anti-TM propaganda, neither the usual stuff you would get at the local center from a starry eyed young teacher. Nor have I more stress in my life than in about 1985. And we all know that you secretly got married , have 2 kids and live in Paris. Nice you can get it all off your chest your Naderness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: please advise me on technique - mantras, experiences
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: Bhairitu: ...some of the opinions expressed on FFL are from rank amateurs who only speculate on how TM works. Some never even became teachers. Some have never been to India nor met teachers outside of the TM movement. So, by whose authority are you passing out these 'guru' mantras? According to John Manning, a former 'TM-Teacher', John 'initiated' thousands of individuals, yet by his own account, he was trained by an outright 'con man', the Maharishi. Hugo says the guy was a 'criminal' and Curtis says it's just 'snake-oil' the Maharishi was selling. Can you cite any scriptural evidence that would give you authority to initiate someone into any Tantric Siddha Tradition? Yes, I've been to India and I've been teaching meditation for over thirty years, with direct authorization from His Holiness The Dalai Lama. Apparently you overheard some nonsense gibbirsh from a few grocery store clerks and an astrologer, who now lives in downtown Oakland. What's up with that? Well at least John has been married 3 times which is more than one can say of you ! Mind you they were all sisters so maybe you two do have something in common after all .
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: Break the suspense Jeff. If thoughts don't create reality, what does? Hairstyles. Just recently we've been told that one spoiled an entire movie. Well, [dRshyam, the Seen, is] **kRtaarthaM prati naSTam** apy anaSTaM tadanyasaadhaaraNatvaat... :0 But the world existed before man existed here and will continue to be long after we are gone , so the sutra must be referring to a change in one's experience of the world , rather than the world actually disappearing once everyone is enlightened as some have suggested. The sense of unity overshadows the world of name and form. I dont think its meant literally .
[FairfieldLife] Re: For Avatar fanboys: get the script here
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: So you can read a few scenes each night before bed or maybe chant it after meditation. ;-) http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43608 http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evans60@ wrote: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality, which they seem to avoid for some reason. Great find and great rant, Jeff. I wouldn't expect any answers from those on this forum who believe this. But I'll provide an answer from a more Buddhist perspective before having fun with dreaming one's reality in my own rant. :-) What the New Agers don't understand is that reality is a consensus phenomenon. Yeah, you might be trying to dream your reality, but reality is also trying to dream you. That is, every sentient being in the universe may be trying to dream its *own* reality into existence, but what appears and wins is the consensus, the Grand Total of all of the disparate dreams. New Agers seem to have mistaken a useful truism (What you focus on you become) for an ego- stoking and non-useful illusion (What I believe will happen happens). Every sentient being has the ability to *focus* on what he or she wants to, and therein lies some usefulness and power. If this ability did not exist, meditation could not exist; if the constant flow of thoughts was *all* of reality, one could never still them. Similarly, in the practice of mindfulness one learns to focus on that which is useful in terms of emotions and the ups and downs of consensus reality. But some take this ability and use it stupidly, choosing instead to focus on really dumb shit. For example, one *could* go to see a movie and, rather than enjoy it as the uplifting fable it is, choose to focus on and go all deja vu on some trauma from one's own early life in which one was told over and over again to go comb their unruly hair. A sane person would enjoy the movie. A less sane person might get so caught up in their own drama as to turn the uplifting film into a story about how unruly hair is really a form of subconscious bigotry, being used to degrade and vilify the very people the movie is...uh...about and whose lifestyle it celebrates. In such a case, one could say that the insane movie viewer had *indeed* created their own reality by ignoring the Big Picture and focusing on a nit and picking at it. A more sane person can enjoy and find beauty even in a film (or a reality) that is less beau- tiful or enjoyable. That's the magic of What you focus on you become, or mindfulness. One does *not* have to fall prey to one's samskaras and re-run the same petty ego-dramas over and over in one's head forever; at any point one can choose to focus on something else. If one were to buy into the logic that allowing an actress to use her own judgment and wear her hair the way she thinks best suits her character is in reality an attempt to denigrate and cast aspersions on lesser Native Americans by an unfeeling director, what are Maharishi's Raja costumes? I mean, the man forced his followers to dress up in silly costumes *that cannot be found in Indian history*. He decreed that all of these no-caste untouchables (in the Indian caste system he believed in as a reflection of the Laws Of Nature or God's will) had to not only wear such silly costumes but prance around in them pretending to be kings of an imaginary country. What act in history has *ever* been more degrading to the people forced to act it out than that? It could be viewed as a form of Look what a smart Indian like myself can make these stupid, no-caste Westerners do, *while paying me a million dollars* for the privilege of doing it to them? In a very real sense, if Mary McDonnell's hairstyle in Dances With Wolves can be seen as an attempt to denigrate Native Americans, I don't see how Maharishi playing dress-up with his Rajas can be seen as anything *but* an attempt to denigrate them, and Westerners in general. The whole scene just *screams* Look at what a smart Indian like myself can make these retarded no-caste Westerners do! Just having fun with the concept, Jeff. I doubt that Maharishi ever *consciously* set out to make his followers look like idiots. It was more subconscious and insidious, like Kevin Costner's real moti- vation for making Mary McDonnell look like a slattern in Dances With Wolves was subconscious. :-) My point is that whatever case one might make for Maharishi being a Class A Vedic Supremacy Bigot, one does not have to place one's focus there. One *could* focus instead on all the millions of people he helped by using the TMO's millions to teach TM cheaply or for free everywhere. Instead of, say, pissing his last years away extorting even more money from them and playing dress-up with a bunch of Ken and Barbie dolls. Oh. Never mind. :-) Not sure I follow your logical sequence
[FairfieldLife] Re: Simple questions that New Agers avoid
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality... You left out a few questions, jeff. The answers to these questions might determine if you are a naive realist, a materialist, or an idealist: 1. Can objects which are known exist independently of their being known? 2. Can objects endure or continue to exist without being experienced by anyone? 3. Does knowing an object create them? 4. If objects have properties, do they derive their existence or nature from the knower? 5. Does knowledge of objects changes their nature? 5. Do we experience objects directly or is there something in between them and our knowledge of them? 6. Do we experience objects exactly as they are or is there some distortion by any intervening medium? 7. Since objects are public, can they be known by more than one person and perceived exactly the same way? 8. Do we perceive objects exactly as they are? Read more: From: Willytex Subject: Things Fall Down Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental Date: February 19, 2002 http://tinyurl.com/y95s9tl The answers depend on whether I am in quantum mode, real life mode or God complex mode on any particular day . Do you believe there are such things as objects ?
[FairfieldLife] Simple questions that New Agers avoid
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_New_Age.htm List of questions for those who believe that thoughts create reality, which they seem to avoid for some reason. When I ask them, they tend to either avoid the question or go off into some irrelevant rant and then re-confirming that thought creates reality principle without even addressing any of my points directly. How strange. I would have expected better from so called truth seekers. Nevertheless, here is the list. 1. If thoughts create reality, then how come we can't fly or walk through walls or move mountains with our thoughts? How come even if I believed 100 percent that I could pass through a solid wall, I'd still bump my head if I tried? 2. If thoughts create reality, then how come it's possible to trip or slip on banana peels? Wouldn't our assumption that it was safe to walk there create a trouble-free walk? 3. If thoughts create reality, then why did the Titanic sink when everyone thought it was unsinkable? 4. If thoughts create reality, then why are there surprises in life? Why do both optimists and pessimists experience events that turn out better or worse than they expected? Shouldn't they have manifested whatever they expected? 5. If thoughts create reality, then why do most things not go according to plan? By planning, wouldn't your thoughts generated during the plan create the reality in which things went exactly according to plan? 6. Is there any objective reality? If not, then how come you can bring a brown table into a room full of people, yet everyone will see the same thing, without you telling them what it is? And even if you told them it was a blue table, they'd still see a brown table. Doesn't that indicate that the brown table has an existence in objective reality? 7. To what degree do thoughts create reality? Are there any limits? If so, then why doesn't Wayne Dyer or Deepak Chopra define any? And aren't they misleading people into thinking that their thoughts are all powerful by not doing so? Or do they have a vested non-spiritual interest in promoting this concept? If there are no limits, then why can't you materialize and dematerialize matter in the physical universe like Q in Star Trek The Next Generation? 8. Another variant of this principle is that expectations create reality as well. In other words Expectations manifest. You attract what you think about. What you expect will be drawn to you. And what you fear also will manifest. Now if that's true, then how come most things don't go according to plan and how come expectations often fail? 9. If expectations create reality then how come we don't always get what we expect? How come there are so many let downs and disappointments in life? 10. Another variant of this is that you will manifest what you fear as Wayne Dyer like to put it. If that's so, why aren't children who are afraid of the boogie man at night don't actually get harmed or taken by one? And how come children afraid of monsters under their bed don't get eaten or killed by them? How come people who get scared after watching a horror movie don't manifest the creatures from the movie into real life? How come Dracula, Werewolves, Frankenstein, Jason or Freddy Krueger haven't manifested into reality yet? 11. If we manifest what we fear, then how come many of our fears don't come to pass and turn out to be just due to an overactive imagination? 12. How come when the year 2000 came, many feared that a Y2K bug might wreak havoc in society by causing many crucial computer systems to shut down, yet the scare turned out to be nothing? How come their collective fears didn't manifest? 13. Do you really believe that if you drank cyanide or muriatic acid and believed 100 percent that it was just plain water, that it wouldn't harm you? I hope not! 14. Since a lot of you folks also believe that how you see yourself and what you think you are will be how others see you and what others think you are, then do you really believe that if you walked into the Pentagon and believed 100 percent that you were the President of the United States, that everyone there would think that you are The President? And what if I believed that I was Superman or Batman? Would everyone believe it too? 15. And what if an ugly fat woman walks around in public like she is super hot and sexy, and believing as such in her mind 100 percent? Would everyone then think she was super hot and sexy and desire her? Or that she was delusional? And what about the people in the insane asylum who believe they are Napoleon or Jesus Christ? Does society accept their claims? Do they then become that and become the ruler or savior of the world?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Judy's Hair Club For Women
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willy...@... wrote: I may even wear sticks, feathers, flowers, or anything that gives me delight in my hair. You may wear your hair anyway you like... Judy wrote: Meow, dear, looks like you've been misled by what Barry said about my posts. They didn't say the state of the hair was relevant to anything at all--*except* in the context of one particular movie, made 20 years ago and set in the 1860s, in which the choice of hairstyle for the lead actress exemplified in a racist attitude, one of the most pernicious of all exclusionary tendencies, in the hearts of the filmmakers. By me, you're more than welcome to wear sticks and feathers in your hair. Heck, you can even wear your *bed* in your hair for all I care. ;-) This thread is a genuine 'howler', fer sure! Maybe it should go into the 'FFL Hall of Flame'. LOL! In a previous post, Barry made comments about Judy having a tiny 'web cam' attached to her computer, and he and Manning posted a fake image purporting it to be an image Judy took of herself with her own web cam. But, neither of them responded with a web cam image of their own hair. LOL!!! If you are looking for pictures of guys Willy I think you have come to the wrong place . Maybe if you contact the gentlemen above privately they could send you some hair photos. Or even better some actual samples for your collection ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Annals of modern journalism
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: This sentence, written by a NY Times reporter, appeared yesterday in a news story: To help me understand how the proposed cuts would affect riders, the staff reached deep into Hopstop's big, googly brain and felt around. To see the context: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/nyregion/10citycritic.html A cheerful idiot who works well under supervision. She looks happy in the photo though : www.newyorksocialdiary.com/i/partypictures/11_03_08/toddmerrill22.jpg
[FairfieldLife] Judy's Hair Club For Women (was Re: 'Avatar' arouses conservatives' ire)
Judy's Native American name may indeed be splitting hairs ! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: Perfect way to end my posting week, by pointing out that the *other* self-proclaimed feminist on this forum seems to *agree* with Judy characterizing another woman as a slut or prostitute *on the basis of her hairstyle*. Look up the word slattern. Note its synonyms: slut and prostitute. Note definitions such as: a pros- titute who attracts customers by walking the streets and a loose woman. This from the two feminists who suggested that me pointing out that IMO Sarah Palin is a very ordinary- looking woman and that the only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because of makeup was misogyny and hatred of women. The two feminists seem to feel that *they* are able to refer to *another woman* as a slattern FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THAT THEY DON'T LIKE HER HAIRCUT. That's not hatred of women. But pointing out that Sarah Palin has to wear a ton of makeup to look good on camera is. Go figure. Now, having set the stage for the meltdown that will follow today and the early part of next week, I shall again withdraw and allow the two unpersons to make my points for me. Have a nice rest of Friday folks...I'm off to Barcelona for the evening while they sit in their houses and plot their revenge. :-) :-) :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ wrote: It's all about Judyagain. Didn't Barry make a formal declaration that she was a non-person? Didn't he vow to not read her posts beyond the message view because he's too cowardly to admit to himself how badly she mops the floor with him EVERY TIME? Now he's cruising for a bruising... again? Pass the popcorn. This is going to be fun. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: This followup to a followup is just for fun, because we all know that Judy is out there somewhere, chomping at the bit to come running back to FFL and call me a LIAR for saying the things below. Let's compare my characterization of her freakout over unkempt hair to her *actual words* on the subject, shall we? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Just as a followup, doncha think it's fascinating that a supposed feminist throws away several posts 1) picking a nit about another woman's unkempt appearance as if that somehow offended her, and 2) does so by suggesting that it is somehow inauthentic for a woman in any era to wear her hair the way she wants to? Presumably the ideal woman Judy has in mind would submit to what the society she lived in (*especially* other women who bitchily criticized her unkempt appearance) wanted from her, rather than express her own taste in hairstyles. :-) The following -- emphasis mine but the words Judy's -- is what she actually *said* about Mary McDonnell's hair after seeing Dances With Wolves. (*IF* she ever saw it, that is...I think we all know there is a possibility she never did, and is basing these rants purely on what she was told about the film by someone else, as she's done in the past with Apocalypto and other films.) Note the...uh...lack of equanimity in the following quotes. Note that Judy is almost *out of control* with anger at having been forced to view the hairstyle of a slattern (her term) on another woman. Note that this supposed feminist wants the right to impose *her* ideas of a proper hairstyle on another woman. Ponder its meaning and have as much fun laughing at feminist Judy as I have. Doncha get the feeling that someone in her past said all of these things to Judy about *her* hair, and now years later she is still so programmed by that as to feel that she has the right to say them about another woman's? Some feminist. Yeah, but my point was that *her hair was just slovenly looking*. *You'd think if she wanted so badly to belong to the Lakota culture, she'd have found a way to keep it neat*. You can make perfectly good braids with curly hair, and hers wasn't all *that* curly, really just wavy. I don't know, maybe they thought the *messy hair* kept her from looking too glamorous. But she was by far the most prominent woman in the film, and *it gave the impression that she had somehow become wild and savage* She'd been taken in by the tribe when she was a little girl. *I don't think at that point she would have had a cultural identity that would have made her grow up never combing her hair and looking like a slattern*. Her real mother would never have let her look like that. *That made it appear as though she never combed her hair*? What were the filmmakers thinking *to allow her to choose to look slovenly*, in contrast to all the
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Avatar' arouses conservatives' ire
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation seekliberation@ wrote: I saw the movie. Awesome graphics, yet a very boring plot IMO. Regarding left wing/right wing oppositions to aspects of the movie, I do find it odd that liberals identify with cultures that possess many of the same qualities that 'most' of them completely lack, or greatly despise. The indegenous people in Avatar were very warlike, they were hunters, and lived a very harsh life in a very dangerous environment. Even the women were rather aggressive and able to hunt and fight. The only reason it seemed possible to gain their respect is because a Marine joined their tribe and could actually hang with their toughest members and pass tests of fearlessness. Otherwise they would've looked at anyone else as being too weak or feeble to be among their culture. Dances with Wolves followed a similar pattern. If there is anything I get from either of those movies, it is that you must have respect for both sides of life, basically a yin/yang concept. An absence of one or the other is incomplete. Not sure where or if this fits in, but my sister pointed out to me that all the Indian women in Dances With Wolves were beautifully groomed, their hair in neat braids or pulled back, whereas the 'do of Stands with a Fist, the white woman who was supposedly completely assimilated into the Lakota culture and fiercely loyal to it, was loose, messy and unkempt, as if she never combed it. That had to have been a choice, but what was it supposed to mean? Big disconnect somehow. I dont think ceramic hair straighteners were available in the 1860's ( although she obviously had access to curling tongs )
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Avatar' arouses conservatives' ire
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jeff.evans60 jeff.evans60@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Not sure where or if this fits in, but my sister pointed out to me that all the Indian women in Dances With Wolves were beautifully groomed, their hair in neat braids or pulled back, whereas the 'do of Stands with a Fist, the white woman who was supposedly completely assimilated into the Lakota culture and fiercely loyal to it, was loose, messy and unkempt, as if she never combed it. That had to have been a choice, but what was it supposed to mean? Big disconnect somehow. I dont think ceramic hair straighteners were available in the 1860's ( although she obviously had access to curling tongs ) Yeah, but my point was that her hair was just slovenly looking. You'd think if she wanted so badly to belong to the Lakota culture, she'd have found a way to keep it neat. You can make perfectly good braids with curly hair, and hers wasn't all *that* curly, really just wavy. I don't know, maybe they thought the messy hair kept her from looking too glamorous. But she was by far the most prominent woman in the film, and it gave the impression that she had somehow become wild and savage when she was taken in by the tribe, as if Indian women were naturally unkempt--except that the others weren't! It seemed as though the filmmakers hadn't thought it through, as if they couldn't quite cope mentally with the idea of a white woman becoming one of *them* without lowering herself and becoming uncivilized. No doubt all subconscious on the part of the filmmakers, but it was just rather unpleasant. Assuming it was a conscious decision how she was portrayed , I think the message the filmmaker was trying to give was that the Indians were happy to allow her to live with them without trying to force their cultural identity on her . Similar to the way the native culture adapts to its surroundings, unlike the white man who attempts to impose his will on his environment.
