Enlightenment and Male Vanity

[Carmody]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by ulli (here)
To me, being an astrologer, Pluto will always be a planet.
The influence is so powerful, despite Pluto's small size,
that whenever I want to prove to someone of the parallel events of someone's life and a planetary transit I choose Pluto transits to make my point, as these are unmistakable in their powerful transformative effect.

Perhaps it's not that small, far away, rock called Pluto that you're noticing.

Perhaps rather Pluto is caught up in some particularly interesting aspect of the electrical-plasma geometry of the solar system, making it not the cause of the patterns you notice, but rather a useful marker of those patterns.

yes, one and the same.

what is a particle, but a zero point marker for a multidimensional flux point?

[ulli]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by ulli (here)
To me, being an astrologer, Pluto will always be a planet.
The influence is so powerful, despite Pluto's small size,
that whenever I want to prove to someone of the parallel events of someone's life and a planetary transit I choose Pluto transits to make my point, as these are unmistakable in their powerful transformative effect.

Perhaps it's not that small, far away, rock called Pluto that you're noticing.

Perhaps rather Pluto is caught up in some particularly interesting aspect of the electrical-plasma geometry of the solar system, making it not the cause of the patterns you notice, but rather a useful marker of those patterns.

That is exactly what it is. A marker for patterns that run parallel in a multitude of levels and dimensions simultaneously.
This is what I have been trying to explain. People who understand Hermetic principles get it, all others stay with disbelief, as nothing that far away could possibly "cause" a death, for instance. Yet Pluto is often around when deaths occur, but also new birth. Vortex planet.

[Flash]

Now a bit of female vanity and competitiveness, at an early age, just done differently from males

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SgXlTB32MPM

[ulli]

Posted by Flash (here)
Now a bit of female vanity and competitiveness, at an early age, just done differently from males

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SgXlTB32MPM

It's just that today's kids are fast learners.

[thunder24]

as a kid, I was sheltered, mother and father from Miami, hippies, moved to the appalachian mountains, waited 7 years and had me. Sheltered from the world, had what I needed, raised as they thought I should b in a "christain home" ( talk about some molding of the psyche)
By the third grade, going to the psycologist for depressioin. Being picked on in school, because I wouldn't fight,( didn't understand why i needed too). Dad lost his job, and now we didn't have the "money" we used to, so I wasn't treated to the things I was used too.

I did not understand this. 4th grade now into competitive baseball and basketball, while not being the best, it was an outlet for aggresion, and found myself being "needed" on the teams... Still picked on, for being "dumb" or "silly", "not getting it"... Usually due to my being sheltered, I dind't know about things... things such as Sex, drugs, cussing, ways to act, situations in life I was never exposed to that my friends were. I had a friend whose mom was so high on the needle, that when she asked him for a ciggarette, he gave her a crayon and she "smoked" it... These types of things made me realize I didn't know what the world was about or contained... and made me feel dumb...

So then came the embarrasement of mom and dad in public, my friends making fun of them and the way they talk, word usuage. I didn'tknow how to deal... These were my parents that I loved, but wanted to get away from, and these were my friends, whom I wanted to b around, but were making fun of my parents...

Comes High school... basketball and baseball still doing well... went to college "to play basketball" I kept the bench very very very warm...

they would say " oh thunder24 is book smart, but has no common sense, no street smarts"... so to this, I realized even more the depth of my concealment from reality, and made me bitter. Parents would say they loved me, I would tell them, only because I am your child, not because of "who" I am.

Today.... feels he has to always defend his understanding...because those around him quit learning... defend himself from the alpha males with more experience, defend himself from the alpha males who are smarter and he assumes they will find his weaknesses and shread him... This I feel often... and 99% of the time, after interactions are over, or situations have concluded.... the insecurities, were nothign but mental garbage.

This has probably been said, but personally it appears that my ego comes from trying to protect a hurt boy(is this my ego protecting itself, trhying to give itself a purpose of uses?)... mayb not all the time but, my opinion is it contributed to my own "ego".

I had all I needed, a great life and yet the emotional insecurities still raise their head, to the point of explosion as was mentioned earlier by strat and ulli.

peace
p.s. around all these hill billies, a little light causes one to easily b vane, for theres no real comparison here, or is there.... oh these simple mountain people.

[ulli]

Very moving and also revealing post, Thunder.
You are probably just one step away from full self realization.
Acquiring self knowledge is the healthiest method to fight feelings of insecurity and depression.
Once your search leads to the discovery why you are here then nothing can slow you down...
even though there are few people who understand you.
Your guides will always bring you back to this moment when all of it makes good sense.
Thanks for being here on Avalon.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Posted by Flash (here)
Now a bit of female vanity and competitiveness, at an early age, just done differently from males

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SgXlTB32MPM

Perhaps not that different?

Long fight, good one too!!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vR4UPc7lnv8

[Carmody]

Of course, you are bringing a fight .....to a thread which is about not eliciting those responses in people?

That it starts at home?

And we need to tame it in our selves, individually, so we don't project it 'out there?'

If it exists, it is out there on the net, somewhere. Ie, extreme examples.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Posted by Carmody (here)
Of course, you are bringing a fight .....to a thread which is about not eliciting those responses in people?

That it starts at home?

And we need to tame it in our selves, individually, so we don't project it 'out there?'

Their fights are very personal, like any other fight, and they found the right place for it and are prepared, I fight and violence has got nothing to do with it, its playtime, I am not a violent man, NOT. If people would just please stop Yinging my Yang that would make a conversation much easier.

[Carmody]

Posted by 778 neighbour of some guy (here)

Posted by Carmody (here)
Of course, you are bringing a fight .....to a thread which is about not eliciting those responses in people?

That it starts at home?

And we need to tame it in our selves, individually, so we don't project it 'out there?'

Their fights are very personal, like any other fight, and they found the right place for it and are prepared, I fight and violence has got nothing to do with it, its playtime, I am not a violent man, NOT. If people would just please stop Yinging my Yang that would make a conversation much easier.

Where did fighting get conflated with Yang?

As in, with respect to the vast majority of the people out there who may practice forms of fighting, this is not the reality. It's projected violence in most cases.

If you allow for one, then how does one get others to cognate a difference, and not fall down a hole?

Also, show me a boxer who has no brain damage, no brain scarring. Recent studies show most eloquently...that person does not exist.

How is this good?

What are we going to do here, allow for infection? Allow it's intrusion, in a controlled manner? In that case, then ... what is the difference?

Where is the difference in that, compared to elitists who cause people, cause great masses - to fight wars? Where do you draw the line?

How can one be allowed and not the other?

In similar statement and meaning... Yoda said, 'There is no try'.

I'm not excusing myself here, but I recognize the difference between do and not do and slippery slopes. I recognize the dilemma.

And... boxing as being "allowable" is a very very slippery slope.

[778 neighbour of some guy]

Posted by Carmody (here)

Posted by 778 neighbour of some guy (here)

Posted by Carmody (here)
Of course, you are bringing a fight .....to a thread which is about not eliciting those responses in people?

That it starts at home?

And we need to tame it in our selves, individually, so we don't project it 'out there?'

Their fights are very personal, like any other fight, and they found the right place for it and are prepared, I fight and violence has got nothing to do with it, its playtime, I am not a violent man, NOT. If people would just please stop Yinging my Yang that would make a conversation much easier.

Where did fighting get conflated with Yang?

As in, with respect to the vast majority of the people out there who may practice forms of fighting, this is not the reality. It's projected violence in most cases.

If you allow for one, then how does one get others to cognate a difference, and not fall down a hole?

Also, show me a boxer who has no brain damage, no brain scarring. Recent studies show most eloquently...that person does not exist.

How is this good?

OOmpf spiritual en political correctness eh, drives me nuts, I am a reiki master, rebirther and for some reason people like to shove all of that in a box, you can be only this or that, I am also a fighter because its just another fun physical component to life and as personal and close as you will ever get the chance to get with everybody, trained, controlled, referee, medical attention.

Only saints and angels here eh, yech.

[ulli]

I have a feeling that this thread had run it's course already a couple of days ago.
My point was made and blessings to all those who got it.
Some great sharing of personal views took place as well.

And I really appreciate your defending it, Carmody, but it's ok.

There will always be those who believe that a discussion is not complete
unless they have a chance to point out the exception to the rule.

And 778, don't complain about people yinning your yang
while your own point is as obscure as you just made in your post above.

I'm sure Carmody felt you were yinning my Yang,
and I must admit that's also how I perceived it.
Anyhow, I like your expression "yinning my Yang", and will absorb it into my vocabulary.

But to be fair here, it would have helped if you had at least announced that you were in play mode.

P.S. I just read your reply to Carmody and I have to say, it seems to me that you are definitely posting in the wrong thread, if not the wrong forum.

[Carmody]

Posted by 778 neighbour of some guy (here)

Posted by Carmody (here)

Posted by 778 neighbour of some guy (here)

Posted by Carmody (here)
Of course, you are bringing a fight .....to a thread which is about not eliciting those responses in people?

That it starts at home?

And we need to tame it in our selves, individually, so we don't project it 'out there?'

Their fights are very personal, like any other fight, and they found the right place for it and are prepared, I fight and violence has got nothing to do with it, its playtime, I am not a violent man, NOT. If people would just please stop Yinging my Yang that would make a conversation much easier.

Where did fighting get conflated with Yang?

As in, with respect to the vast majority of the people out there who may practice forms of fighting, this is not the reality. It's projected violence in most cases.

If you allow for one, then how does one get others to cognate a difference, and not fall down a hole?

Also, show me a boxer who has no brain damage, no brain scarring. Recent studies show most eloquently...that person does not exist.

How is this good?

OOmpf spiritual en political correctness eh, drives me nuts, I am a reiki master, rebirther and for some reason people like to shove all of that in a box, you can be only this or that, I am also a fighter because its just another fun physical component to life and as personal and close as you will ever get the chance to get with everybody, trained, controlled, referee, medical attention.

Only saints and angels here eh, yech.

I never said I had an answer and I never exempted myself.

The only thing I personally know, is that I manged to rise to the top of the depths of the ocean of being in a body, by dropping all of it, letting all of it go. I hung onto.... nothing.

It was a 'fire sale', all of it had to go and all of it went.

I felt and do feel that the clinging to any of it and the 'fighting back' as only the male does, is part of it.

That the issue is not the fighting back or balancing out, as it may be, but the misalignment, the projection of it via the male body. The attempt at balance can become the overwhelming force of projection of position. And so on.

Women, or being in the female body has just as much that stands in the way and colors the issues. It just tends to head off in a different direction... different flavors, different means, different results, different aims, different outlook, etc.

[Nanoo Nanoo]

Ulli Dulli

But there are so many threads on this forum where any attempt by a guy who is way up there in his cosmic understanding gets either ridiculed, or similarly, if challenged in any way but another man with a similar understanding, then the challenger is dismissed in no uncertain terms.
I find this quite disappointing.

The only way to explain this is that males perceive the world as a system of vertical hierarchies, and in their innate competitiveness they create mental ladders,
establishing higher and lower rungs and ranks, instead of consciously focusing on the equality principle of horizontal structures, and the power that unity creates.

I know a few males here who have made attempts to reach out, but typically have received mostly either ridicule or silence. And worse, if just three or four of the women here showed a bit of support for their ideas, a lot of the other men became alarmed, and even subjected the women who offered the support to hostile comments.

I remember one of the most disruptive egoists from avalon ... the all time avalon egotistic control freak was ... ? _ _____ _

Where is see a division in over views is truly from the perspective of the viewer. This can colour arguments in favor to and fro. However can we try to put our selves in the shoes of others ? to remove the ego and the vanity and deconstruct the self in order to get a glimpse of the others mind/ emotions ? this is the challenge and in adapting a modern ego system.

The modern ego is not a driving force of selfishness .. on the contrary .. it uses the vital strength egoic charge can have ( its our most powerful energetic centre depending on the individuals propencities ) and be DIRECTED to an intention for a win win instead of a victory. This is the tipping point of understanding a good ego.

Vanity to me means furnuishing myself with trinkets that make me look good. I think in regard to forums, we all love the pat on the back .. the reward for effort .. is it such a bad thing ? nooo but like anything can be misused .. like i always say

" ... the deed is in the intentional use of the hand .. a pen can be used to write a beautiful poem , or stab one in the neck .. same instrument , diferent intentis ... "

MDE

getting back to my original thought before i was distracted with caffiene ! ... hmm ... ah yes ! Ulli , you describe the typical mental traits of men , in particular their establishing lower and higher ranks. I refer to a speech given by "Girl Writes what " ( i dont know her actual name ) she deconstructs men really well and resonated with her description of us ( or me at least ) that Men are defined to themselves by their social identities. This to me seems a poignant part of the mans self worth.

So its no wonder we tend to battle a little when this is being undermined or challenged... then the women rush in to protect and nurture the wounded soldier..

this to me seems a totally natural and normal thing ... When a man came home from battle he was tended to by his woman.. given food , she healed his wounds, gave nourishment and helped him rest, spoke in his ear of thanks and gave him something to strive for.. the look in her eye ( ; 0 ) , he was safe , for even a few hours before he went out again to risk life and limb to provide for his family. Its a partnership of gender roles of natural propensity ...

if we were to super impose this in todays role models .. she would have gone out to battle , got hacked to death by ferrocious men , he would have no idea how to boil the water to make food for the kids which by the way was in the back pack of the woman ... IT DOSENT WORK !

Womens rights Just like mens rights are social reactions to natural propensities and when political stratergies interplay with this enacted by morons called polititians then you get todays societal short comings.

I say get back to basics.

Men do the man things and Women do the woman things and if you want to cross genders then have a look at the gay community. They aint having the best of luck with social understanding or even coming to terms of same sex raltionships even in modern times. With even having any sort of equality for happening to being in love with the same sex which is on a grand scale ABSOLUTELY NATURAL ! God does not care whom you love , as long as you do. But look at the gay community as a role model... They have a higher p-ropensity for promiscurity fuelled mostly by enviromental past times such as drugs extasy etc .. Why is the gay community the biggest advocate for call a drugg abuse ? are they trying to bridge a gap of natural feelings burgeoned by a drug colouring ? just that lttle tint of rose in the glasses for effect.. i dont know , but looking at this .. if they were so happy being Gay why are they numbing them selves with such huge drug regiments ?

i think even with this extreme example we see nature cutting through ... the point is , we dont recognise our own nature .. and we do not edify our natural feelings and that can be misleading ourselves with socially constructed models of equality ...

How many women and men here truly wish for it to be the way it was in the 50's ? show of hands ? typically the man went out to work 10 hours a day ( only 5 day working week mind you ) to provide shelter , food and lifestyle , the woman tended to the home , the children and up bringing of the childrens best morals and ideals supported by the father showing the role of a hard working ethic to earn a good and honest living in a home where love, understanding, charity and creativity were encouraged. The family had neighbours they had over for dinner and the family unit was the way it was supposed to be .. " A FAmily ! "

dont you dare tell me its a fantasy ! i grew up with it and so did a lot of us on here .. just because some didnt have such a priivellige dosent mean its not a model we cannot aspire to.

But we cant do it if we are gender confused in our natural roles.

I think if we wanted to truly look at the negative effects we would have to use the Gay community not as Gay being stray .. on the contrary but in the way that Gay people try to mimmick the traits of how they see the opposite sex.. ie how a lesbian or bull dyke would emmulate their opinion of a man. On the other hand how a gay man would try to be more feminine by interpreting their view of a woman and then emmulating it.. They tend to eggsagerate the worst traits of gender swapping. And i truly think you should observe this in an enviroment where these people have had a few drinks to eggsagerate the effects ...

Now this is a generalisation and meant to be a talking piece so please lets not get the worng idea and get pour backs up on gay rights or something distractive like that ok ?
nice

Naniu

[RunningDeer]

Posted by 778 neighbour of some guy (here)
Only saints and angels here eh, yech.

Yipes, not me! Still dimensionally thick. Long list that says I’m not: toilet seat’s up, skips showers, wears the same shirt over and over, sandy and dusty car, cookies for dinner, so many half read books on my iPad that I have to prop table leg #4 with real books.
That’s what I’m willing to cop to....hee, hee. Love not being a saint.

Alright one more....yes, twice in two weeks...I did a drive up for a GMO ‘Burger King’ fries and chicken sandwich. Still angry I ate it so fast that I forgot to taste it. (It’s been a weird couple of weeks.)

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Nanoo Nanoo (here)
How many women and men here truly wish for it to be the way it was in the 50's ? show of hands ? typically the man went out to work 10 hours a day ( only 5 day working week mind you ) to provide shelter , food and lifestyle , the woman tended to the home , the children and up bringing of the childrens best morals and ideals supported by the father showing the role of a hard working ethic to earn a good and honest living in a home where love, understanding, charity and creativity were encouraged. The family had neighbours they had over for dinner and the family unit was the way it was supposed to be .. " A FAmily ! "

dont you dare tell me its a fantasy ! i grew up with it and so did a lot of us on here .. just because some didnt have such a priivellige dosent mean its not a model we cannot aspire to.

Naniu

I grew up with that model, too, Naniu. The one I’ve spoken about since the early 1970’s is one where both 'Mom' and 'Dad' have the equivalent of one job. We live within our means. Alway end the month in black and put a little money aside.

The family is strong because there’s balance between family time and time for personal growth.

There’s a community spot with a fire pit for those that want to join in with such things as eats and greets, music and stories and sports just for the sake of play and exercise.

[ulli]

Posted by Nanoo Nanoo (here)
Ulli Dulli

But there are so many threads on this forum where any attempt by a guy who is way up there in his cosmic understanding gets either ridiculed, or similarly, if challenged in any way but another man with a similar understanding, then the challenger is dismissed in no uncertain terms.
I find this quite disappointing.

The only way to explain this is that males perceive the world as a system of vertical hierarchies, and in their innate competitiveness they create mental ladders,
establishing higher and lower rungs and ranks, instead of consciously focusing on the equality principle of horizontal structures, and the power that unity creates.

I know a few males here who have made attempts to reach out, but typically have received mostly either ridicule or silence. And worse, if just three or four of the women here showed a bit of support for their ideas, a lot of the other men became alarmed, and even subjected the women who offered the support to hostile comments.

I remember one of the most disruptive egoists from avalon ... the all time avalon egotistic control freak was ... ? _ _____ _

Where is see a division in over views is truly from the perspective of the viewer. This can colour arguments in favor to and fro. However can we try to put our selves in the shoes of others ? to remove the ego and the vanity and deconstruct the self in order to get a glimpse of the others mind/ emotions ? this is the challenge and in adapting a modern ego system.

The modern ego is not a driving force of selfishness .. on the contrary .. it uses the vital strength egoic charge can have ( its our most powerful energetic centre depending on the individuals propencities ) and be DIRECTED to an intention for a win win instead of a victory. This is the tipping point of understanding a good ego.

Vanity to me means furnuishing myself with trinkets that make me look good. I think in regard to forums, we all love the pat on the back .. the reward for effort .. is it such a bad thing ? nooo but like anything can be misused .. like i always say

" ... the deed is in the intentional use of the hand .. a pen can be used to write a beautiful poem , or stab one in the neck .. same instrument , diferent intentis ... "

MDE

getting back to my original thought before i was distracted with caffiene ! ... hmm ... ah yes ! Ulli , you describe the typical mental traits of men , in particular their establishing lower and higher ranks. I refer to a speech given by "Girl Writes what " ( i dont know her actual name ) she deconstructs men really well and resonated with her description of us ( or me at least ) that Men are defined to themselves by their social identities. This to me seems a poignant part of the mans self worth.

So its no wonder we tend to battle a little when this is being undermined or challenged... then the women rush in to protect and nurture the wounded soldier..

this to me seems a totally natural and normal thing ... When a man came home from battle he was tended to by his woman.. given food , she healed his wounds, gave nourishment and helped him rest, spoke in his ear of thanks and gave him something to strive for.. the look in her eye ( ; 0 ) , he was safe , for even a few hours before he went out again to risk life and limb to provide for his family. Its a partnership of gender roles of natural propensity ...

if we were to super impose this in todays role models .. she would have gone out to battle , got hacked to death by ferrocious men , he would have no idea how to boil the water to make food for the kids which by the way was in the back pack of the woman ... IT DOSENT WORK !

Womens rights Just like mens rights are social reactions to natural propensities and when political stratergies interplay with this enacted by morons called polititians then you get todays societal short comings.

I say get back to basics.

Men do the man things and Women do the woman things and if you want to cross genders then have a look at the gay community. They aint having the best of luck with social understanding or even coming to terms of same sex raltionships even in modern times. With even having any sort of equality for happening to being in love with the same sex which is on a grand scale ABSOLUTELY NATURAL ! God does not care whom you love , as long as you do. But look at the gay community as a role model... They have a higher p-ropensity for promiscurity fuelled mostly by enviromental past times such as drugs extasy etc .. Why is the gay community the biggest advocate for call a drugg abuse ? are they trying to bridge a gap of natural feelings burgeoned by a drug colouring ? just that lttle tint of rose in the glasses for effect.. i dont know , but looking at this .. if they were so happy being Gay why are they numbing them selves with such huge drug regiments ?

i think even with this extreme example we see nature cutting through ... the point is , we dont recognise our own nature .. and we do not edify our natural feelings and that can be misleading ourselves with socially constructed models of equality ...

How many women and men here truly wish for it to be the way it was in the 50's ? show of hands ? typically the man went out to work 10 hours a day ( only 5 day working week mind you ) to provide shelter , food and lifestyle , the woman tended to the home , the children and up bringing of the childrens best morals and ideals supported by the father showing the role of a hard working ethic to earn a good and honest living in a home where love, understanding, charity and creativity were encouraged. The family had neighbours they had over for dinner and the family unit was the way it was supposed to be .. " A FAmily ! "

dont you dare tell me its a fantasy ! i grew up with it and so did a lot of us on here .. just because some didnt have such a priivellige dosent mean its not a model we cannot aspire to.

But we cant do it if we are gender confused in our natural roles.

I think if we wanted to truly look at the negative effects we would have to use the Gay community not as Gay being stray .. on the contrary but in the way that Gay people try to mimmick the traits of how they see the opposite sex.. ie how a lesbian or bull dyke would emmulate their opinion of a man. On the other hand how a gay man would try to be more feminine by interpreting their view of a woman and then emmulating it.. They tend to eggsagerate the worst traits of gender swapping. And i truly think you should observe this in an enviroment where these people have had a few drinks to eggsagerate the effects ...

Now this is a generalisation and meant to be a talking piece so please lets not get the worng idea and get pour backs up on gay rights or something distractive like that ok ?
nice

Naniu

The world is far too complex for me to judge all the experiments with life style being conducted out there.
And I'm not going to even comment on gay versus straight.

I'm not a law maker, I'm a self definer.
SELF DEFINITION. Been doing that for years, and discovered that I have manifestation muscle.

So then I come to the point where I start finding I'm not alone, and get active on forums to get involved in group interaction
and so I notice that some of the behavior of some the people around me is really predictable.
So I feel their self definition is still stuck, and short of naming names and challenging specific individuals I just express a wish...

HERE IS MY WISH
In view of the fact that the whole world is on the brink of becoming an Orwellian nightmare,
with the whole collective unconscious throwing out this control freak global monstrosity that wishes to
enslave us, whom they see as the great unwashed, for all eternity, I'm curious if not some of our brighter members can't
think about letting go their own personal agenda for five minutes a day
and start building some kind of bond or buddy system here...
in order to pool and coordinate their capacities.

Like this:


Oops, I just realized how insane I am.
So let's just forget it.
Back to my old desireless state.
Erase. Delete.

[Sierra]

Difficult subject, difficult thread.

It is hard to visualize what is not there, but desperately needed... I got so very upset on a tangent of this thread (it would have been a distraction to the main theme), that I had to write Ulli privately to vent my frustration and pain.

The progression I perceive as the goal to bring about support from men, to men, requires a baseline of where change is needed, and to establish that, one has to go into the pit of pain, and release the darkness generated by the old paradigm. I myself feel completely helpless to effect any change, except in myself. I cannot imagine growing up as a male in the American culture, where you are told things we never hear (misogny/military paradigm,to hate women, and kill men) by your authority figures and peers, that prepares you to kill, just as we are prepared to be helpless and silent.

I know it can be done, I know it will be done, I try not to think of the how, let go, and live in the result. Calling on all mommies to raise their sons as lovers, wise and kind. We are part of the problem/solution too, to contravene the patriarchal training in the young. I was raised by a feminist mother, grandmother, and my great grandmother filed for divorce the day it became legal (great grandfather suffered a head injury with a combine during harvesting and turned into a cruel, unkind person), and it still did my brother no good. Illuminati asshole he is.

I ramble. Ulli, thank you for your thread. Thunder, thank you for your post.

Love, Sierra

[turiya]

Posted by ulli (here)
My only regret is that many highly enlightened men, who, more than the enlightened women I know, don't unite more into brotherly teams, with other men, who also got IT. I so wish for this to happen.

With enlightenment... that is to say when one truly becomes enlightened, one becomes truly integrated. A child is created by the union between a man & a woman... half is feminine energy coming from the mother, and half is male energy coming from the father. Each of us has a male part and a female part. This is the meaning behind the symbol of Yin & Yang. An individual may have the appearance of being a man, but behind the curtain lay the female. And the same for a woman, behind the facade there is an inner man.

The meeting of a man & a woman in relationship is simply the attempt to unite outer man & the woman within, and the outer woman with her inner man. It is an outer expression, an outer attempt, which is not at all possible in the outside world. It is not possible for the two individuals to become one. The two can only come close, but is not a real possibility for a union to occur in the outside world between two people. The union can only occur within oneself... in one's aloneness... when the outer woman meets her inner man, and the outer man meets his inner woman.

The outer is simply a reflection, an attempt to achieve that which can only happen within. The outer man meeting the outer woman is but like a practice, or a practicing, for what can come later, when the need for an outer partner is understood to not be necessary. When the understanding comes, that the other is not needed to reach higher states of consciousness. Once this union occurs, this inner union, it is what has been called brahmacharya.

The thing is: Anybody that has reached this level of awareness is also quite comfortable being on one's own, enjoys the aloneness, without feeling the 'need' to unite or be bonded with others. Others may feel to be drawn towards such an individual, but for the individual himself, there is no drive to be drawn towards, or to be associated with others, even if the other is "enlightened" him/herself.

Perhaps, you are familiar with the "enlightened" west coast couple, Gangaji & Eli Jaxon-Bear that were married (later divorced), and for some time had given joint satsangs for those that were interested. I do believe there is a video out there on youtube where they explain why they decided to separate.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LLouASJQF4o

Posted by ulli (here)
But there are so many threads on this forum where any attempt by a guy who is way up there in his cosmic understanding gets either ridiculed, or similarly, if challenged in any way but another man with a similar understanding, then the challenger is dismissed in no uncertain terms.
I find this quite disappointing.

To the one that is "enlightened", if that is indeed the case, then I would imagine that one would not be much affected by the ridicule or criticisms of others. After all he knows himself for what he is, and even more so, for what he isn't. Such ridicule, then, has nothing to do with him (or her), but is entirely has everything to do with those that are throwing the criticism.

Posted by ulli (here)
The only way to explain this is that males perceive the world as a system of vertical hierarchies, and in their innate competitiveness they create mental ladders, establishing higher and lower rungs and ranks, instead of consciously focusing on the equality principle of horizontal structures, and the power that unity creates.

Society as a whole has been conditioned as such, with the use of 'higher' & 'lower' terms. Certainly, there are levels of awareness. But to describe these various levels requires word use & language to do so. Word use & language are often barriers in communication, more often than not, resulting in miscommunication, especially when it comes to those that speak from mountain peaks to those that still reside in the valleys of the world.

Posted by ulli (here)
I know a few males here who have made attempts to reach out, but typically have received mostly either ridicule or silence. And worse, if just three or four of the women here showed a bit of support for their ideas, a lot of the other men became alarmed, and even subjected the women who offered the support to hostile comments.

Not sure if these critics were objecting to the enlightened male's overconfident style, and wanted to teach him a useful lesson to improve his teaching methods, or if they were merely jealous. Self-image has a lot to do with this need to never appear naive, or gullible, and so it's often an automatic response to tear down another guy, often in the name of "healthy skepticism".

More often than not, the idea of "reaching out" will be met with opposition. It will be seen as being something of a trespass if it is not preceded by an 'invitation', or a 'request' by the listener, or by the reader. 'New information' has to be asked for, before it is capable of being received by the one that is making the request. Otherwise, whatever is said as a way to "reach out" will be looked upon as a provocation, or assault on the beliefs, knowledge & notions that form the basis of one's ego. If one is not ready to let-go of one's preconceived notions, 'new information' will appear threatening to the ego. It is more than likely that the ego will react to defend itself. More often than not, an attack mode is taken as the best way to defend itself, i.e. "the best defense is a good offense".

Posted by ulli (here)
I do know that when anyone reaches a spiritual plateau of integrity dark entities take hold of those who are not quite there yet, and unbeknownst to them attempt to tear down the enlightened one.

This has been the case throughout history.

Posted by ulli (here)
This era is no longer about male guru-ship, and their female followers, like we saw in the last (20th) century, but a brotherly-sisterly equality team job which all sides need to participate in.

I would view it as a time of friends that are to be found in the world of the 'extended family'.

turiya

[ulli]

Posted by turiya (here)

Posted by ulli (here)
My only regret is that many highly enlightened men, who, more than the enlightened women I know, don't unite more into brotherly teams, with other men, who also got IT. I so wish for this to happen.

With enlightenment... that is to say when one truly becomes enlightened, one becomes truly integrated. A child is created by the union between a man & a woman... half is feminine energy coming from the mother, and half is male energy coming from the father. Each of us has a male part and a female part. This is the meaning behind the symbol of Yin & Yang. An individual may have the appearance of being a man, but behind the curtain lay the female. And the same for a woman, behind the facade there is an inner man.

The meeting of a man & a woman in relationship is simply the attempt to unite outer man & the woman within, and the outer woman with her inner man. It is an outer expression, an outer attempt, which is not at all possible in the outside world. It is not possible for the two individuals to become one. The two can only come close, but is not a real possibility for a union to occur in the outside world between two people. The union can only occur within oneself... in one's aloneness... when the outer woman meets her inner man, and the outer man meets his inner woman.

The outer is simply a reflection, an attempt to achieve that which can only happen within. The outer man meeting the outer woman is but like a practice, or a practicing, for what can come later, when the need for an outer partner is understood to not be necessary. When the understanding comes, that the other is not needed to reach higher states of consciousness. Once this union occurs, this inner union, it is what has been called brahmacharya.

The thing is: Anybody that has reached this level of awareness is also quite comfortable being on one's own, enjoys the aloneness, without feeling the 'need' to unite or be bonded with others. Others may feel to be drawn towards such an individual, but for the individual himself, there is no drive to be drawn towards, or to be associated with others, even if the other is "enlightened" him/herself.

Perhaps, you are familiar with the "enlightened" west coast couple, Gangaji & Eli Jaxon-Bear that were married (later divorced), and for some time had given joint satsangs for those that were interested. I do believe there is a video out there on youtube where they explain why they decided to separate.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LLouASJQF4o

Posted by ulli (here)
But there are so many threads on this forum where any attempt by a guy who is way up there in his cosmic understanding gets either ridiculed, or similarly, if challenged in any way but another man with a similar understanding, then the challenger is dismissed in no uncertain terms.
I find this quite disappointing.

To the one that is "enlightened", if that is indeed the case, then I would imagine that one would not be much affected by the ridicule or criticisms of others. After all he knows himself for what he is, and even more so, for what he isn't. Such ridicule, then, has nothing to do with him (or her), but is entirely has everything to do with those that are throwing the criticism.

Posted by ulli (here)
The only way to explain this is that males perceive the world as a system of vertical hierarchies, and in their innate competitiveness they create mental ladders, establishing higher and lower rungs and ranks, instead of consciously focusing on the equality principle of horizontal structures, and the power that unity creates.

Society as a whole has been conditioned as such, with the use of 'higher' & 'lower' terms. Certainly, there are levels of awareness. But to describe these various levels requires word use & language to do so. Word use & language are often barriers in communication, more often than not, resulting in miscommunication, especially when it comes to those that speak from mountain peaks to those that still reside in the valleys of the world.

Posted by ulli (here)
I know a few males here who have made attempts to reach out, but typically have received mostly either ridicule or silence. And worse, if just three or four of the women here showed a bit of support for their ideas, a lot of the other men became alarmed, and even subjected the women who offered the support to hostile comments.

Not sure if these critics were objecting to the enlightened male's overconfident style, and wanted to teach him a useful lesson to improve his teaching methods, or if they were merely jealous. Self-image has a lot to do with this need to never appear naive, or gullible, and so it's often an automatic response to tear down another guy, often in the name of "healthy skepticism".

More often than not, the idea of "reaching out" will be met with opposition. It will be seen as being something of a trespass if it is not preceded by an 'invitation', or a 'request' by the listener, or by the reader. 'New information' has to be asked for, before it is capable of being received by the one that is making the request. Otherwise, whatever is said as a way to "reach out" will be looked upon as a provocation, or assault on the beliefs, knowledge & notions that form the base of one's ego. If one is not ready to let-go of one's preconceived notions, 'new information' will appear threatening to the ego. It is more than likely that the ego will react to defend itself.

Posted by ulli (here)
I do know that when anyone reaches a spiritual plateau of integrity dark entities take hold of those who are not quite there yet, and unbeknownst to them attempt to tear down the enlightened one.

This has been the case throughout history.

Posted by ulli (here)
This era is no longer about male guru-ship, and their female followers, like we saw in the last (20th) century, but a brotherly-sisterly equality team job which all sides need to participate in.

I would view it as a time of friends that are to be found in the world of the 'extended family'.

turiya

Good reminder. Thank you.
Now that I've dropped my dream of seeing unity outside of me I got my equilibrium back.
It's all good.

Once in a blue moon I actually care about the state of the world,
I get reminded that there are others who like me (in the past) object to political correctness,
which in turn teaches me the lesson I need here- namely that no group can ever find unity
without some level of agreement how such unity can be created and maintained.
If just one person has major issues with political correctness the group unity effort will be in vain.