ilumairen

Both pictured quotes appear to date to 2008.

After looking into this, it appears the Wuhan reference is a later edit, and not found in the original 1981 edition. And the second photographed quote is from a(n also later) Sylvia Browne work called End of Days.

Leave. Quit. What is the actual difference? And who cares? Why are you guys so fixated on each other? It's almost like you've become favorite playthings to each other. Most curious given the clear disdain... I stepped in dog poop once when I was a kid. I cleaned it off my boot, and went back to exploring what interested me.

Curious. Wouldn't taking refuge under the guru, any guru, be for those uncertain or feeling shaky with their connection to their own inner refuge? And as such, isn't it meant to be a means of recognizing and stabilizing one's own (inner) connection, temporarily projected into the form of another? Further rendering whatever is experienced as refuge in another the manifestation of a "not yet matured" (for lack of a better way to phrase it, and certainly not meant in a derisive manner) mind?

This (in a general sense) is something I've found rather fascinating here - the dynamics of how seriously and personally opinions are/can be taken. Watching the dynamics play out in myself and others has certainly been part of my personal exploration and path.

Good start. I was not telling you what you can or cannot write. I was making a suggestion regarding how to more easily avoid what you seem to wish to avoid. If you could say the same thing with different terminology which wouldn't lead to what is presently arising here, why wouldn't you? (Unless it doesn't actually mean the same thing? At this point I honestly don't know, and this all seems a bit surreal to me.) For better or worse, certain phrases develop certain associations. When we are aware of the associations we may be more able to convey what we actually wish to convey. Which isn't actually about approval or disapproval, but the development of skill imo. This is good. If my posts bother you, then it is your right to put me on ignore if you wish. But much like the stand you are attempting to make, I will continue to respond and share where and how I wish. Take care.

Yeah, poor martyred Jeff. Honestly, this could easily be avoided by using traditional terminology - which is exactly the point I'm attempting to make, and you seem unable to see. Don't want a "Jeff whupping post" don't use the language which brings it about. Easy Peasy.

Because Jeff has behaved like a creeper, and it is odd to me someone would want to be associated with such. YMMV And I wasn't suggesting change of what works for you, but appropriate language if you didn't want your sharing to bring to mind the Cult of Jeff with others here. If it is legitimately called other things then what would be the harm of using that terminology instead? When clearly there would be benefit in avoiding the Jeff rabbit hole?

Perhaps you would consider using the terminology found within the traditions you mention then, instead of a Jeffism which is bound to raise eyebrows for now obvious reasons?

6,605 (which the drop window currently shows) is still a bit less than 10,000.

We have completely stopped going to any store. Goods are ordered, packages sprayed with lysol when delivered, and then placed in the garage for at least 24 hours. We're both still working, and consider our coworkers, and in my case the odd present necessity of my menial job.. We can't fix "stupid," but sometimes we can adapt when confronted with it.

Then move along genderbater.

Your questions are non-sensical, and have absolutely nothing at all to do with the comment I made. But if you really desire some response, I'll offer you this: It was silly men with weird ideas looking for excuses for their failures with women who coined the term beta male - which in all honesty means absolutely nothing (aside from the built in excuse for a self defeating attitude).

I think it's about something you tried to make happen - even though from what I can gather you failed? I kinda appreciate the more open manner karmic stuff is presently allowed to play out. Too many buried and hidden seeds before.. now things can whither or thrive in the open.

It's actually starting to look like he may not be.

Are you almost done creating foolish arguments for me and then defeating them? It's kinda silly, and if you would rather just have a conversation with yourself you could do so without making a caricature of me in your mind to duel with.

Because I have experience which indicates your understanding of this isn't entirely accurate. I believe it may be this concept of "hardwired" which is creating the disconnect. You have crafted an idea of women, and you are reifying it imo. Why do you seem to equate physical attributes with spiritual realization?

Because the women here largely just ignore your posts. I only see what others quote, and am beginning to agree with the sentiment others shared here regarding quoting and responding to you. So, take care and best wishes. Ta ta.

I think you're confused, and honestly could care less who you find sexually attractive. We aren't tools.

Cognitive dissonance? When you start off with a need for peer reviewed research to prove women are even capable of thinking for themselves, this certainly is polarizing, and what, at this point, I would refer to as your own ideology. Perhaps you've missed something here. I am a woman. I make numerous decisions daily (i.e. think for myself), and your ideology doesn't match up with the reality I live. Imo, you are using facts to prop up your predetermined conclusions and biases. If you stopped at facts, and left your woven narrative out of the presentation, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

What you presented was (intentionally?) polarized.. and then you play "victim" when this polarization is reflected back to you? Where is the rationality in that? Perhaps if you stick with facts things will progress differently.

Would you actually like some evidence there have been women who were considered enlightened? I, and I'm sure some others here, could pull some quotes for you if you are being honest here, and not simply justifying your strongly held belief with words meant to sound logical and rational.

If he keeps up like this, there may actually be a chance he doesn't get reelected.

I chose this quote intentionally, although I'm going to address your most recent posts directed at me. Please reread the posts I've made and words I actually typed in this thread. I have not said there are no differences between men and women. It is your own argument placed upon me, not a position I hold, and yet something you are attempting to push me into defending. For what purpose? You are not responding to the words I type, but what you're holding in your own head. To me, this indicates entrenched paradigm, which isn't an attempt to shame, but an observation which to me indicates how involved I am inclined to become. Back to the above quote: Perhaps because you so blatantly attempt to do the "thinking" for others, and don't leave much room for them to share what they actually think, it is difficult for you to believe they can think for themselves at all. Maybe you're just trolling, and maybe it's honestly important to you to believe only men have a potential for enlightenment. I don't know. The only thing I do know at this time in this interaction, is you've put a yoke of limitation on women, and one I disagree with in many ways, but not the way you've attributed to me.

If he keeps typing this could change.