Apech

I watched some vids either by or about Rohl's ideas a few years ago. I wasn't very convinced but I can't remember why.

Hi, This is quite difficult to address and I have my own thoughts on this - which I can't say are very orthodox. Of course in principle the Dharma is for everyone not just men - so from a general perspective there doesn't seem to much justification for suggesting anything misogynistic in Buddhism. However if you look at how Buddhism developed in the first centuries after the Buddha you can see it became increasingly scholastic and monastic, developing quite large communities in monasteries and 'universities' who lived quite separate lives from the lay community and depending on royal subsidy. In these communities which were almost all male an attitude to women and sex developed which can be characterised as negative because the monks were trying not to break their vows of celibacy. This leached out and linked to general cultural mores which saw women as chattels or at least second class citizens. This is probably why the tantric samaya vows (avoidance of root downfalls) specifically disallows the denigration of women - it was an adjustment to the general trend. Obviously the tantricists had a quite different attitude to women and sex to other Buddhists. It is said that the Buddha who created the role of monks (bikhsus) in order to free people up from daily life and the arduous social responsibilities imposed by Vedic religion on householders, resisted at first the idea of nuns but later allowed it being persuaded by his family. But is said to have said that this meant that the dharma would not last as long because of it. My own opinion is that the Buddhas original message was quite quickly captured by scholastics who did not understand non-dualism and fell into various attitudes such as misogyny. This does not mean that all teachers and gurus were like this but that it was a general cultural mileu.

Carbon dating is ok if you remember the +/- errors - and use it as a broad general guide and not cast iron proof. Q: Have you ever used Carbon Dating? A: No - but I've signed up to Match.com (Old jokes are the best, eh?).

Joker? Great film.

I find the Phantom Time business, which is new to me, fascinating. After all 'histoire' and similar words in Romance languages from which we get our 'history' just means a story. But a story doesn't really mean a fiction - not in the sense of something fantastical and made up - what I think it means is a narrative supplied in order to make sense of what has happened. It supplies meaning rather than derives meaning. After all, even our recall of fairly recent events is notoriously creaky, and wise/clever people who realise this devote time to supplying narratives e.g. Shakespeare in his historical plays for the late Medieval and Churchill in the post war period. From this we build some kind of view, identity and perspective on the world - as well as a kind of glimpse into underlying truth. The idea that for instance Charlemagne might be a kind of reverse engineered fiction to justify the political power and position of later monarchs is quite appealing. I suppose the narratives of narratives are myths. They become myths I would suggest because of the underlying truth they express. So Gilgamesh is true in some sense even if not literally. In fact literal truth may be unhelpfully dull whereas narrative truth is illuminating. This kind of blows up any idea that History as a subject is a kind of science - along with its related subjects of archeology and anthropology (sociology even) - they are narrative providers really. For instance how often I've found in archeology that vast theories about societies and cultures are built on a very few dusty fragments - an act of creative imagination more than anything.

I've reported him too. Please don't let him put you off continuing this, or starting new threads of this kind. It is one of, or perhaps the best thread on DBs and I'm enjoying it immensely.

My teacher used to call civilisation 'syphilisation'.

Nicely put. Whence comes the hymen if not from nature???? Perhaps it's nature's way of saying 'Hi men!' ...

I don't think so. The other protagonist Gilgamesh who was king was becoming unpopular partly because he was exercising droit du seigneur which was pissing everyone off for obvious reasons. Enkidu was set up to be his equal and opposite - a natural man. The method of his 'capture' was again a man-made role that of prostitute/priestess. This is all a consequence of civilisationary pressures - hence the distortion of the subtle body.

Well, that's not quite what I meant. Shamhat's whiles were specifically a trick designed to rob his powers, for which she used her sexuality (make-up, nudity and so on). Enkidu is natural and yet naive - some imbalance is created because of the deception and this imprints on his subtle body. Just thoughts. Tell me I'm wrong

It's possible to argue that this is also about a certain type of sexuality which alters the characteristics of the subtle body. Interested in people's views on this. I am not trying to be prudish or judgemental but just practical.

Sorry it's a bit long - but the story is that the wild creatures fled. But of course it was him who had changed - so I guess you read it either way. The point I was trying to make was that humans and animals naturally have affinity but the changes in man - sex and civilisation (?) - change his energy to make animals generally shun him - while perhaps a few select animals i.e. dogs could see through the changes to the original nature. Thus they were not domesticated as such if you see what I mean. Just a thought.

Just standing or Zhan Zhuang will do.

I put Everything on 'ignore' but I can still see his post which is a bit annoying. If Enkidu lived with the animals and used their watering hole etc. and didn't lose this affinity with nature until seduced by Shamhat - then perhaps the domestication of dogs is not domestication. If we take Enkidu as our natural state that is. Perhaps it's just that they retained an affinity with man when other animals lost it ... because of the energetic effects of civilisation (as symbolised by Shamhat as temple priestess/prostitute - especially given the emphasis on make-up = masking true nature)??? So dogs (and to a certain extent other animals) somehow retained the ability to relate to our inner nature - while 'wilder' animals did not. Just a thought.

You're confused! Spare a thought for the rest of us. P.S. For your information Australia is almost entirely inhabited by convicts and felons of various types, many of whom are Irish. http://sites.rootsweb.com/~fianna/oc/oznz/pasconau.html

Cultivate stillness in either standing or sitting posture.

@ऋषि are you trying to equate these deities with Vajrapani???

can we change Nungalis name to 'Who?Him?Oh.Him.Oh.Yeah.?

Wait till we get on to the subjunctive!

Yeah that would be Jesusing ... as in 'what's that beardy guy wearing sandals up to?' ... 'Oh he's just Jesusing around.' Also if you practice Dharma just after the Winter Solstice : 'Christmas Buddhing'. OK I'll stop now.

Sure you're right we should not descend into a mocking howling mob - that would be inhuman. I just think we are all to a greater or lesser extent incomplete - or incomplete works in progress if you like. But humour (or humor for you guys ) is more of a healer than anything if it comes from the right place. It's right to reject types of behaviour that are harmful or potentially harmful - but then 'hate the sin not the sinner' - or to be even more Jesusy about it: "Matt. 7. [1] Judge not, that ye be not judged. [2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." When a man who dispenses orgasms at a distance enters a room people fall to their knees with joyous expressions shouting 'At last! At last! Thank you God!!!!!' And the weird thing is exactly the same thing happens when I leave a room. Its yin and yang, ladies and gentlemen, it's all yin and yang.

We all knew about it, don't feel bad, if you hadn't mentioned it somebody (i.e. Nungas) would have

No. No. No. No banning for past transgressions - ban for rule breaks (which may include hate speech if so deemed by Sean). We are DBs not the moral majority - not the not-so silent majority. Do you want to propel us back to the 1950's? First of all none of us know what actually transpired in those MacDonalds of yesteryear - what if more or less nothing happened and it was all just in his mind. So there was only imagined 'O at a D' and then we are banning someone just for thinking something. Thought crime. And we are the Ministry of Truth. Second - suppose it did happen - then what is the pathway to redemption? To be dispatched to the wilderness or to be left here where we can take the piss out of him as long as we like. As cultivators of various types we have to believe in pathways to renewal and liberation. Otherwise what are we doing here? Love and forgiveness brothers and sisters NOT witch trails 2019.

Humour is the best antidote to almost anything.

Hmmm yes, this is an important point I think. From my experience Buddhists (Tibetan mostly) seem to treat the 'deities' as real even though if you ask they will say that they are aspects of buddha-nature. That applies to all tantric deities such as Manjushri, Chenrezig and so on. But of course it all depends on what you mean by 'real' anyway. Its more than just an exercise I think because they inspire real devotion and aspiration but on the other hand all deities, entities and so on are empty-of-self - just as we are. Pure Land Buddhism is perhaps the most devotional of all the schools of Buddhism. Also there are hells in Buddhism - all kinds, hot, cold and so on - 16 in fact. And on the other hand there are Buddha-fields or Pure Lands also. So that's very heaven and hellish. But I would say its a completely different interpretation to Christian heaven and hell - but most westerners who go into Buddhism import a load of assumptions and preconceptions from Judeo-Christian beliefs and some never get rid of them. Which is a problem.