tyler zambori

hi, My understanding is that, after you touch the tongue to the roof of the mouth, You then breathe down to the Tan Tien, in stages, making sure to feel the breath all the way. Ok but, breathing stops at the bottom of the lungs. I can't breathe down to the Tan Tien because my lungs don't go down that far! So how do you really do this? Think of the Tan Tien while breathing in? Visualize a column of air going down to the Tan Tien? What!? Thanks! Tyler

I found this quote this morning: It's from: On claiming to be a stupid man who doesn’t know anything http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/on-claiming-to-be-a-stupid-man-who-doesnt-know-anything/ I'm not posting it here because of the title of the blog post, but because I thought that particular part of the blog post was really smart.

That book looks interesting ,as well as several others by that author. if I may ask, did you find it helpful?

@Nungali, I was just joking with you......and of course you can post your thoughts here if you like. @rex, basic spiritual sanity, yeah.....but I think few of us get to have a relationship that encompasses all levels of our beings....

I'd like to open one, thanks,

Thank you

You know, I wanted to avoid defending myself over this, and I've got something to say, but I'm not sure I feel safe saying it even here. If I re-open my own PPF, do I get more control over a personal self-defense? Ps: Which moderator do I need to ask? It's been a while since I did it before.......

-

I'd be interested in that.

I just want to say, I also don't know the whole story, but I think she spoke quite well on the "Are men generally more conscious than women" thread. The bits at the end, which got the thread locked, were rather squirm-worthy, but before that her contribution was insightful and valuable.

Apech, this is wonderful. I think it would be wonderful if a modified version of this was pinned at the top of the general discussion area, maybe something like: And then maybe add somethig like UTI's statement that: So in the end it could look like this: Bravo, both Apech and UTI! I think pinning something like that at the top of the general discussion forum would go a long way to make TAO BUMS more inviting. Brilliant. Apech, at the very least, may I quote you on that whenever a sexist statement crosses my path? I would really much rather be growing mold on soybeans than going into total debate mode, which does take a lot of my time. No, really I actually do grow mold on soybeans - it's Indonesian food.

I guess you're talking about issues surrounding men providing financial support when a marriage is over? I don't have kids, so I don't have any personal experience in this area. But yeah, the way the system favors women when it comes to custody may not be so fair. I think our society screws men over on both sides here, first by teaching them that the women are the ones for bringing up the children and therefore the women are the ones who get custody of the children too. There is an example from my personal life I'll bring up. My s/o has a child out of wedlock with a previous girlfriend. He's grown up now. The pregnancy was not planned on his part. It is not known for sure if it was planned on her part, but his brother's wife told me that she had been trying to hold onto him. Great. So then there was a court battle over forcing financial support, and the mother won. And then when he got to school age, the mother decided to home school him, but then she didn't really. She got a teacher friend to be the one to "supervise," and the friend didn't "supervise." So the burden of teaching fell to my s/o, who could only do what he could one evening a week. He's a smart kid, but he doesn't even have a high school degree, won't even try to do it on his own, has never had a job. He's supported by the family. So what is he going to do when his grandmother and mother are gone? I tried to get my s/o to try to do something about it, when he was a teenager, but he was not willing to go against the mother on this. So yeah, I think this is an area where men should be a little more equal, because that situation did not help his son.

BKA, are you speaking as a moderator?

I wish the silly excuses about how feminism is only for women would stop too. Yes, exactly, and the moderators should really put the emphasis on this idea: Because all this yin v. yang stuff, the way it's being used, does not seem very Taoist to me either.

Thanks UTI, this is very interesting . We would all like to be free, indeed. #5 is especially sad. I was thinking this myself - the young boys need more help than they get.

PS: When I say "these guys" I only mean the sub-pocket of men who have already shown sexist attitudes.

I'm going to really break it down then. 1. Steve said that men are less conscious than women. He also said that women are more in tune with reality. 2. Aetherous then said that: If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes. (meaning that in that case, then yes women are more in tune with reality if reality involves shopping for handbags). 3. Aetherous wanted to make a disclaimer that anything he says in this thread is all about disproving the statement that "men are less conscious than women". 4. He then said: The purest truth is that men and women are quite different, and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, depending on how you look at things. 5. Brian said that reality does include expensive handbags, and all the ten thousand things (basically). 6. Aetherous said that “These girls” spend $450 for a handbag, and that he doesn't think that is an indicator of living a conscious life. 7. Apech included his statement that "If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes." in a list of offensive things said in that thread. 8. Aetherous claimed his statement was taken out of context, and that he was not insulting women. He said that his purpose was to give some proof that women are not more conscious of reality than men. He then said that he doesn't think it applies to all women, so there fore it could not be an insult to the women on this forum, because they are probably not that type. Now on to post #407 in this thread: 9. The pertinent thing Aetherous said was: “ I also didn't say anything sexist...in fact, I stated a TRUTH. A truth which was solely to disprove the sexist notion that "women are more conscious than men". So how does saying that only some women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags, disprove the statement that men are less conscious than women? I'm asking you, logically, how does that work out? It doesn't. No, this only works as an argument if you want to make the claim that ALL women's reality is all about shopping for expensive handbags. And that is exactly what he did, in #2. He did not mention any sub-pockets of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. True he did not type the word “women,” because he was responding to Steven who did use the word “women,” meaning all women. So he didn't have to say “women” meaning all women, because Steve already had said “women.” Now, #3 doesn't really jibe with #6, because #5 was not about proving the statement that "men are less conscious than women". It was about saying that shopping bags are indeed a part of reality. #4 is nice and pretty. #6 also does not mention any sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality. It further reference “these girls.” Who are “these girls”? Women? Yeah. The sub-pocket of the population that are the ones who make shopping for handbags their reality, were not even mentioned at all, until his statement showed up on Apech's list. (Uh oh!) But when Aetherous started getting mad at me, he went on to say that he stated a truth, which he used to disprove the idea that “men are less conscious than women, and that that women are more in tune with reality.” So now is he saying that he does think all women are all about shopping for expensive handbags? Because if he's not, then it doesn't work as an argument. And he only mentioned the supposed sub-pocket of the population when faced with a higher-ranking male. Hmmm.... Nope, I think my conclusion was absolutely correct. Thank you for your input though. Eh, it's probably always a mistake to really confront any of these guys with their sexism, because they are just not going to become conscious of it. And that's why I don't really agree with the idea that debate will help anything. What's really needed is a bathroom wall. I really wish there was one.

When a person just says "women," what does he or she mean? He or she means "all women." Just to be clear, "these girls" also means "all women." You thought you found yourself a cute device that would let you say something sexist and get away with it, and now you're mad because it didn't work. I thought you said you were done with me?

Which truth? The truth that all women care about is shopping? Do you really think that is a nice thing to say? It isn't a nice thing to say. So yes you did say something bad about women. You said that all women about care is shopping and buying expensive things. It's all fine as long as we don't get too real, I guess. And actually, you are the one who tried to engage me. So if you have nothing more to say, well, good.

And on that note, I hope here is something more positive: http://thebaffler.com/past/feminism_for_men (It's an old article from 1914) Feminism for Men Floyd Dell [from The Baffler No. 24, 2014] Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free. At present the ordinary man has the choice between being a slave and a scoundrel. That’s about the way it stands. For the ordinary man is prone to fall in love and marry and have children. Also the ordinary man frequently has a mother. He wants to see them all taken care of, since they are unable to take care of themselves. Only if he has them to think about, he is not free. A free man is a man who is ready to throw up his job whenever he feels like it. Whether he is a bricklayer who wants to go out on a sympathetic strike, or a poet who wants to quit writing drivel for the magazines, if he doesn’t do what he wants to do, he is not free. . . . And this will be true so long as women as a sex are dependent on men for support. It is too much to ask of a man to be brave, when his bravery means taking the food out of the mouth of a woman who cannot get food except from him. The bravest things will not be done in the world until women do not have to look to men for support. Capitalism will not like that. Capitalism does not want free men. The change is already under way. Irresistible economic forces are taking more and more women every year out of the economic shelter of the home into the great world, making them workers and earners along with men. And every conquest of theirs, from an education which will make them fit for the world of earning, to “equal pay for equal work,” is a setting free of men. The last achievement will be a social insurance for motherhood, which will enable them to have children without taking away a man’s freedom from him. Then a man will be able to tell his employer that “he and his job can go bark at one another,” without being a hero and a scoundrel at the same time. Capitalism will not like that. Capitalism does not want free men. It wants men with wives and children who are dependent on them for support. Mothers’ pensions will be hard fought for before they are ever gained. And that is not the worst. Men don’t want the freedom that women are thrusting upon them. They don’t want a chance to be brave. They want a chance to be generous. They want to give food and clothes and a little home with lace curtains to some woman. Men want the sense of power more than they want the sense of freedom. They want the feeling that comes to them as providers for women more than they want the feeling that comes to them as free men. They want some one dependent on them more than they want a comrade. As long as they can be lords in a thirty-dollar flat, they are willing to be slaves in the great world outside. . . . In short, they are afraid that they will cease to be sultans in little monogamic harems. But the world doesn’t want sultans. It wants men who can call their souls their own. And that is what feminism is going to do for men—give them back their souls, so that they can risk them fearlessly in the adventure of life. . . . When you have got a woman in a box, and you pay rent on the box, her relationship to you insensibly changes character. It loses the fine excitement of democracy. It ceases to be companionship, for companionship is only possible in a democracy. It is no longer a sharing of life together—it is a breaking of life apart. Half a life—cooking, clothes, and children; half a life—business, politics, and baseball. It doesn’t make much difference which is the poorer half. Any half, when it comes to life, is very near to none at all. First published in The Masses (July 1914).

I'm not sure I understand your question about sex difference and straw dogs? Could you explain more?

Aetherous said: Of course you didn't insult me personally. Please go back and watch that video Zanshin posted, then read my further comments about it. And yes, I still do think what you said was sexist ,and that you did intend it to be a hateful, sexist comment. So I'm going to call you on it. Here's what you said: If reality involves what handbags are on sale this weekend, then yes. Also, my main point in making any post in this thread is to point out how ridiculous it is that it can be said without any issue, "men are less conscious than women"...but if you say the opposite, you're perceived as threatening or something. It's just that our society is ridiculous and made most people behave this way. The purest truth is that men and women are quite different, and have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, depending on how you look at things. You made a sexist comment, then you tried to walk it back. That is what is going on here - you are just trying to walk it back. (Here's a disclaimer: I would also not say that men are less conscious than women). Then you said: (meaning reality does include expensive handbags) You know what handbags cost these girls, right? It's like $450 for one. If someone thinks such things are indicators of living a conscious life...well, I can't ever agree. Huh. You just forgot to walk it back on that one. So what you are saying here is that women are all about shopping, and buying expensive shit, and therefore could not possibly be more conscious than men. You would not say this if you didn't believe it. You do believe it, and you want to say it to us, and then walk it back to avoid the reaction. Then you said: This comment is taken out of context of the post. I was not insulting all women with that comment...the only purpose was to counter the claim that "women are more conscious of reality than men" made by Steve. It's like, "well here's some proof otherwise"... It obviously does not apply to all women...but it undeniably applies to a portion. So basically, no, women are not more conscious of reality than men. On the other hand...we have quite a few women here who are interested in the more meaningful aspects of life. Who I would say are more conscious of reality than others. So basically...not an insult. And please no one take it as one. Unless you primarily care about handbags being on sale this weekend. But then I'm sure you aren't even reading this. So sometimes you want to apply it to all women, but when called on it, you only want to apply it to the "less conscious" women. Tell you what, men can and do buy all kinds of expensive shit. They can go into a men's store and buy $200 ties, $500 alligator shoes and etc. There are men in my neighborhood who buy $25,000 trucks they don't need with $25,000 speaker ssytems, all the while living in cheap apartments. If you really wanted to counter the claim that men are less conscious than women , you could have easily done it a lot better than that. Face it, you made a hateful, sexist comment. You tried to backtrack and the others didn't, but you still did it. Women do not want to have to put with a hateful, sexist environment on this forum. That is why there are so few. That is why so many leave, and YOU are a part of the problem.

-

Aetherous, you yourself are one of the people who said something insulting to women. I just posted what it was. That's why I posted the facepalm picture when you asked who did such a thing, and where.

Yes, I agree, but I wasn't talking about reading report titles. I was talking about just reading the titles of new threads. Surely the thread title "are men generally more conscious than women" gives a clue that it's going to be offensive to women in the forum. The question itself is offensive. I know the mods have a lot of shit to deal with; I sure wouldn't want to do it. I think the women on the forum would just like the mods to be a little more cognizant of discrimination.