[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita@... wrote : Re A wise man views women as corpses, bags of urine and faeces.: These remarks have a long history. See Marcus Aurelius's cynical advice: Sexual intercourse is the rubbing together of abdomens, accompanied by the spasmodic ejaculation of a sticky liquid. These maxims which try to reduce sexual love to something unworthy of a noble man miss the mark. An adolescent infatuated with an ordinary girl is far closer to the real. As Oscar Wilde said: It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. They say Love is blind - but I say that anyone who sees his beloved as someone miraculous has realised that life, our very existence, our realisation that even being born is something incredibly unlikely and a unique opportunity must experience a sense of astonishment and wonder. Falling in love is probably the closest most people get to approaching that sense; a few philosophers don't need sexual love but that is not because they are above the common herd (with a sneer on their faces) but rather because they walk around in a daze in which even the vision of a garden of flowers can astonish and elevate their consciousness. Thanks for that Seraphita. I could requote the above as, A narrow minded and half blind man destined to live a life of sexual frustration and/or loneliness coupled with a poverty born of lack of interaction with half the population views women as corpses, bags of urine and faeces - poor, fearful sod that he would be. And this very man who, as a protection against energy loss by spilling his precious sticky bodily fluid on the behalf of the shit-filled corpse in favour of his pursuit of enlightenment, is benefitting how? Heh, those enlightened guys really got a handle on reality I see. I wonder how many enlightened women have told their women disciplesto avoid those waste-filled corpses called men. After all, in case anyone hadn't noticed, women have energy-filled, moisture-laden orgasms too. (Buck, hide your eyes.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
On 3/16/2014 8:41 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: After all, in case anyone hadn't noticed, women have energy-filled, moisture-laden orgasms too. Women vibrate at a slightly different rate that passes kundalini very easily. It is problematic though, because a woman also picks up negative energy, it affects her more. - Zen Master Rama http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/women_enlightenment.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote : On 3/16/2014 8:41 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: After all, in case anyone hadn't noticed, women have energy-filled, moisture-laden orgasms too. Women vibrate at a slightly different rate that passes kundalini very easily. It is problematic though, because a woman also picks up negative energy, it affects her more. - Zen Master Rama Loosely translated as: Women should stay away from Bawwy. http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/women_enlightenment.html http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/women_enlightenment.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
On 3/16/2014 10:26 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote: On 3/16/2014 8:41 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote: After all, in case anyone hadn't noticed, women have energy-filled, moisture-laden orgasms too. Women vibrate at a slightly different rate that passes kundalini very easily. It is problematic though, because a woman also picks up negative energy, it affects her more. - Zen Master Rama Loosely translated as: Women should stay away from Bawwy. Apparently that's the case. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
The quote, the claim, the view: Shankara, as related in his classic work The Crest Jewel of Discrimination - A wise man views women as corpses, bags of urine and feces. Shankara and his principle disciples were all renunciates (sannyasin-s). Their lives were not dedicated to achieving as much sensory and sensual pleasure as humanly possible - like most of us. Renunciation is not a objective in itself but is rather a means – a codified consequence of behavior to aid single-minded dedication to a goal. That goal, for Advaita Vedantin-s, is ascertainment of the primacy of the field of essence-awareness as the reality of human identity (satyam-jñanam-anantam or essence, awareness, limitlessness). Afterward there occurs the application of discrimination between that Real and the limited senses/mind/intellect. Finally, following that discernment is realization of the indivisibility of Reality-Brahman and all appearances (i.e. the universe of experience - both external and internal). There is incomprehension and antipathy towards this goal and its lifestyle on FFL, which just demonstrates biased ignorance towards the source-teachings at the root of this lineage. Read it and sleep.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote : Or maybe everybody thought your issue was stupid and offensive, and itself homophobic. Wouldn't be the first time you've shown your true colors. On another point, it's pretty amazing that you've been reading all the posts here and are still ostentatiously portraying these dudes as teenagers and adolescents, when they're 20-40 years old. Finally, you appear to think there's something highly unusual and outrageous about institutions housing groups of young celibate men performing religious duties. You might want to Google Catholic seminaries or Catholic monasteries. Mentally prepubescent Bawwy has clumsily attempted to push so many buttons here and missed that he has now virtually reduced his fingers to stumps. Poor shlump, at what age/stage can one finally be called infirm because our Bawwy seems to have reached it. Does FFL have some sort of retirement clause or mentally incompetent category to which repetitious and overly juvenile and obvious posters can become permanently relegated? Seriously, this guy is becoming more embarrassing by the day. Can he not somehow be saved from further public humiliation - I mean the world press and untold numbers of lurkers are watching this whole thing unfold. I see that no one has had the stones to talk about the issue raised in my earlier post about homosexuality among Maharishi pundits ( a pity, really, because Gay Vedic Pundits Riot makes a *much* better headline than Vedic Pundits Riot. :-), so I'll switch over for this cafe rap to the issue of pundit sexuality of the straight kind. When you think about it, even that might be a button-pusher for some here. They don't really think of Hindu monks chanting the Vedas as *having* a sex life. It just doesn't *compute* for them, or go with the descriptions of what such holy pundits are supposed to be like that were presented to them by Maharishi. So they ignore the fact that these are guys either in their teens or slightly older, many of them who have lived in cloistered environments containing only other men since they were eight years old. These guys may literally have never *seen* a woman in all that time, much less touched one. But once these boys reach puberty they're just like any other boys -- filled to the brim with out-of-control hormones, and able to spring a woodie in response to the slightest provocation, even a passing breeze. So when these boys *do* reach puberty, who gives them the sex talk? And what does this talk *sound* like? In my mind's eye version, the guy giving the talk is named Cheechananda. He's OLD, by pundit standards, almost in his thirties. He's been behind barbed wire in institutions like this since he was eight himself, and has never seen a woman since he waved goodbye to his mother as he was taken away to become a pundit. All he knows about women, sex, and sexuality is what he's read in the scriptures he chants and what he's been told by the Indian males who were his teachers. Now he has to pass down that priceless wisdom to Chongji, a new recruit who is starting to tentpole his dhoti at inappropriate times and thus clearly needs to hear the sex talk. What's a bramacharya gonna do in a situation like this? Does the older, wiser monk go soft core, and describe women and their mysteries the way that the Manusmriti does? God for a woman is her husband and the only thing she can hope for is the privilege of being with her husband in her next life. and Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife.? Or will he go hard core and invoke someone nearer to the present day in the TMO's claimed lineage, Shankara, as related in his classic work The Crest Jewel of Discrimination? A wise man views women as corpses, bags of urine and feces. The mind boggles. But the heart chuckles. Oh, the pitfalls and traps silly human beings open up in front of them when they attempt to make the round pegs of adolescent boys fit into the square pegs of their beliefs and assumptions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
Re A wise man views women as corpses, bags of urine and faeces.: These remarks have a long history. See Marcus Aurelius's cynical advice: Sexual intercourse is the rubbing together of abdomens, accompanied by the spasmodic ejaculation of a sticky liquid. These maxims which try to reduce sexual love to something unworthy of a noble man miss the mark. An adolescent infatuated with an ordinary girl is far closer to the real. As Oscar Wilde said: It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. They say Love is blind - but I say that anyone who sees his beloved as someone miraculous has realised that life, our very existence, our realisation that even being born is something incredibly unlikely and a unique opportunity must experience a sense of astonishment and wonder. Falling in love is probably the closest most people get to approaching that sense; a few philosophers don't need sexual love but that is not because they are above the common herd (with a sneer on their faces) but rather because they walk around in a daze in which even the vision of a garden of flowers can astonish and elevate their consciousness.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Pundit Sex Talk
Or maybe everybody thought your issue was stupid and offensive, and itself homophobic. Wouldn't be the first time you've shown your true colors. On another point, it's pretty amazing that you've been reading all the posts here and are still ostentatiously portraying these dudes as teenagers and adolescents, when they're 20-40 years old. Finally, you appear to think there's something highly unusual and outrageous about institutions housing groups of young celibate men performing religious duties. You might want to Google Catholic seminaries or Catholic monasteries. I see that no one has had the stones to talk about the issue raised in my earlier post about homosexuality among Maharishi pundits ( a pity, really, because Gay Vedic Pundits Riot makes a *much* better headline than Vedic Pundits Riot. :-), so I'll switch over for this cafe rap to the issue of pundit sexuality of the straight kind. When you think about it, even that might be a button-pusher for some here. They don't really think of Hindu monks chanting the Vedas as *having* a sex life. It just doesn't *compute* for them, or go with the descriptions of what such holy pundits are supposed to be like that were presented to them by Maharishi. So they ignore the fact that these are guys either in their teens or slightly older, many of them who have lived in cloistered environments containing only other men since they were eight years old. These guys may literally have never *seen* a woman in all that time, much less touched one. But once these boys reach puberty they're just like any other boys -- filled to the brim with out-of-control hormones, and able to spring a woodie in response to the slightest provocation, even a passing breeze. So when these boys *do* reach puberty, who gives them the sex talk? And what does this talk *sound* like? In my mind's eye version, the guy giving the talk is named Cheechananda. He's OLD, by pundit standards, almost in his thirties. He's been behind barbed wire in institutions like this since he was eight himself, and has never seen a woman since he waved goodbye to his mother as he was taken away to become a pundit. All he knows about women, sex, and sexuality is what he's read in the scriptures he chants and what he's been told by the Indian males who were his teachers. Now he has to pass down that priceless wisdom to Chongji, a new recruit who is starting to tentpole his dhoti at inappropriate times and thus clearly needs to hear the sex talk. What's a bramacharya gonna do in a situation like this? Does the older, wiser monk go soft core, and describe women and their mysteries the way that the Manusmriti does? God for a woman is her husband and the only thing she can hope for is the privilege of being with her husband in her next life. and Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife.? Or will he go hard core and invoke someone nearer to the present day in the TMO's claimed lineage, Shankara, as related in his classic work The Crest Jewel of Discrimination? A wise man views women as corpses, bags of urine and feces. The mind boggles. But the heart chuckles. Oh, the pitfalls and traps silly human beings open up in front of them when they attempt to make the round pegs of adolescent boys fit into the square pegs of their beliefs and assumptions.
