Nikolai1

The female spiritual vision is based on permanence, for example that things exist more or less stably in their own right - ie materialism. The male vision is based on impermenance, which is seeing that things are constantly trasnforming and don't stay still for even a split second. Men are therefore spiritually identified with change, and can see the merit in transformations that might look like wanton destruction to female eyes. I refer to war, of course. To be a man is to be a warrior - being a man is being able to over come and overthrow. Lots of kisses from lovely women may temper their appetite for war, but ultimately the man needs to absorb female wisdom in order to know what to change and what to conserve. Kisses won't actually give him this wisdom but will instead throw him out of kilter. He'll try and preserve peace at all costs until the kisses become repugnant even to him and then he'll go to war with his appetite for destruction redoubled.

In taoism: Yin = earth, female Yang = heaven, male What I'm trying to emphasise is that the male way may appear more spiritual and advanced but it is an illusion. Spiritual enlightenment is the transcending of gender and is therefore not preceded by more men than women or vice versa. You migth say that is the realisation that male and female is actually the same thing.

OK, this is my attempt to understand all this men women stuff: The female worldview is basically the one that we are all born into and which 99.9% of people subscribe to. We exist as individual bodies and minds that exist in time and space for a while before dying. The spiritual practice that arises from this view is one of materialism. It is the practice of good deeds and making this earthly life as bearable for as many people as possible. Part of this worldview is an emphasis on physical health: our bodies are fragile and mortal and we must sustain them through good diet and various physcial regimes like hatha yoga and tai chi. This is the female worldview: it is earthy and materialistic, We all begin from this standpoint and it is what the Christians call the state of original sin. The male spiritual worldview is essentially a reaction to this. It is the realisation that the body is an illusion and that time and space are nothing more than a kind of metaphor. Rather than a real world full of suffering beings there is nothing more than a kind of void, an utter emptiness. Everything is unreal like a dream - heaven is the only reality. The feminine concern for good and evil is a pointless illusion. The spiritual goal is to transcend the feminine world of rebirth - but this is hard because it is so alluring, enjoyable and convincing. The enlightened worldview is realising that both the female material world and the male ideal world are two kinds of the same coin. Things neither exist nor not exist. I am the place where existence and non-existence occur together and are harmonised into one. Reality and emptiness presuppose each other - to believe in the truth of either is impossible and false. Now here is where it gets complicated.... For the vast majority of people the opening up of the male spiritual view constitutes a significant spiritual achievement - and men are on average quicker at getting there. The female worldview is easy to grasp, we've all subscribed to it from childhood. But to understand the male view takes dedication and huge intelligence. It can therefore appear that the male way, as demonstrated by the average male seeker is the higher way. But it only appears this way for a while. What most men do in their error is that they entirely substitute their male view for their original female view. They start to believe that the earthly realm of samsara is something bad or false that must be transcended. And because they do this they place themselves in a situation no higher than the female view. If you think that samsara must be avoided then you don't understand the spiritual life. You might as well plunge yourself into it headlong and your attainement will be the same. Spiritual realisation is the blending of both the male and female spiritual paths where earth is the same as heaven and heaven is the same as earth. Until you realise this it is almost inevitable that you will find yourself thinking that "men are more spiritual than women", or vice versa. Hope this makes, sorry it was so long...

Well I was being serious...

But for some people it really is important that they can share their spiritual life with their partner - I'm interested in what people say. For example, it might not feel important to me now but in the future it might be very different.

ShaolinDiva This has come up a lot and it interests me. Speaking personally, my wife is not interested at all in my practice and actually gets angry if I try to talk about. She feels baffled by it and possibly a bit threatened. the point is, I don't experience this negatively at all and I have very little need to talk about my practice with anyone. If i try they don't understand anyway so I'm content to just let it express itself in my behaviour, how I handle situations etc. if they ask I will tell but nobody never really asks. I realise that people don't want to talk about their personal life but I am interested in why it is such a problem to some that their partner doesn't share what they do. How doe it create conflict?

They say they don't notice but they're lying. but you're right no-one can stop you and I'm not even sure that it should be stopped

Women always notice the size of men's feet

Pie guy You are so going to meet her soon. People alays talk like this when they've given up and then BOOM! She will look like this : And much to your embarrassment, you'll love her with all your soul.

Hi grandmaster But this is also because there are many spiritually discerning gentlemen who wouldn't touch your 'spiritualist movements' with a bargepole, and for very good reason. I think you are a man who is following a predominantly feminine path, as evidenced by the larger numbers, greater perseverance and higher success of the women involved. Other men, who are following a more male path are finding that the women lack understanding of their path, are trapped in earthly concerns, aren't really serious etc as per OP. All people are spiritual seekers. To be human is to be a seeker. All this talk about men being more spiritual than women is an illusion caused by their own prejudices. All we have to do is recognise the many paths to realisation - as many paths as there are people ultimately. It's just that women on average and men on average start from opposite poles. Earth/heaven, woman/man, yin/yang. Ultimately all this stuff is harmonised and thus transcended.

Hi Pie guy I think what happens is that you find yourself able to relate to people who you would never have been able to in the past. Spiritual practice makes us more open, less exclusive, and more tolerant of difference. Just because it has failed in the past doesn't mean it will fail next time. There is the phenomenon of dating agency matching where two people look perfect on paper, which might succeed for a while, but there's no creative tension - it's pleasant and there's no pain. I think you have to check with yourself and make sure that your spiritual seeking hasn't become part of your identity, like a persona. The time you look at yourself and realise what bullshit the spiritual search is is the time you will meet your soul mate. She's so unlike you...but the sex is earth moving.

Hi Pie guy, They might not think like that but it doesn't matter because you do and you can bring that to the relationship. There is no need to find someone who thinks identically to us, you might be better off finding a woman whose spiritual path is different to yours. You might not meet her in so-called 'spiritual' communities but you might find here teaching the local kids or caring for people in the local hospital. She might know jack-shit about taoism but the fact is that so much of what gets called spiritual is not really spiritual, and so much of what gets called secular might actually be spiritual. The most important thing is not that she shares your path but that she is open to it and respects it. If you are a good well-rounded person and your practice is bearing fruit she will not be able to stop herself from listening when you tell her about taoist or buddhist thought. The stuff you probably excel in is very very hard to understand, and your overall aim, of ending rebirth, is so marvelous and inspiring, how can people ignore it? Reading the Tao Te Ching is for most people a mortifying and chastening experience. They've heard it's this really famous and ancient book - they really want to like it - but then they read a few pages and they don't understand a word. You would do well to share it and make it understandable. If we want the opposite sex to be just like us we are in for a bad time. And we've all had the experience...we meet an amazing woman who is just like us, shares all our interests, we can talk to them easily...and we don't want to take them to bed. There's a deep wisdom in our bodies.

The fact that there are more men on the forums goes with what I was saying before. Spirituality is seen by many men as a thought based activity - jnana yoga its been called for millenia - and discussion forums are good places for this kind of practice. To develop and share ideas, and crucially, to be sceptical about the thoughts of others is a sure-fire path to realisation. Our genders are ultimately part of our egos and there comes a point where we start to outgrow both of these categories. men might find that they are doing things surrounded by women, and vice versa. To me this is indicative of realisation, provided of course that the person is equally comfortable in the activities of their own gender. I think that this kind of discussion can be a bit sensitive to many. The spiritually interested man might find that they are not conforming to the kind of ideal that women stereotypically go for - the rich powerful stud - and this makes them fell undesirable. They may also find themselves repelled by what seems like materialism in even the more spiritually minded women. All this and they still find themselves strongly attracted to the opposite sex and desperately wanting their company. I don't know what people think but speaking personally the more I've practiced the more powerful and pure has been my feeling of attraction towards women. Perhaps fortunately its not reciprocated! As long as it can be contained it feels amazing, sometimes it seems like all women are goddesses!

I think the first thing I would say is that I think women are indeed more materialistic than men, but this does not mean that they are any the less spiritual. The true opposite of the philosophical term material is ideal and in religious language these might be translated as earth and heaven respectively. the spiritual search for enlightenment and samsara is the search for the material and ideal to be united according to the religious formula: samsara is nirvana, or the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Before this union is achieved I think women tend to root their spiritual practise in the material realm through acts of love, good deeds etc. It takes time for them to realise that spiritual life is more than just making other people happy and comfortable while they live on earth. On the other hand men can be overly idealistic and root their practice in what seem to women abstract formulations of theologies, systems and laws. The female way might be thought of goodness and the male way the way of wisdom. But, as I said, the aim of both paths is to realise that being kind needs a wise and sober understanding of the situation if we are not to make it worse, and that all the wisdom in the world is useless without anyone to benefit from it. I therefore can't agree that fewer women seek enlightenment. It can however appear that way if we understand that path to enlightenment in an overly male way. This can also lead to one-sided evaluations of female behaviour. For example: Actually I agree with this, but I also think that they are less likely to judge men on their looks. men on the other hand can be quite unvain in themselves but find themselves quite harshly judging an unattractive woman. Each gender is therefore guilty in their own way but in a way that complements the virtue of the other. If we only see the negatives in the opposite gender we are missing the whole picture. Yes, I agree that the frustrations inherent in the female path will steer them towards the male path, and vice versa. I'm not so sure about this notion of choice but I certainly think that a young woman who seems overly invested in their appearance is in for a big and ultimately productive shock. I think the materialistic nature of women can be so hard for men because it goes against everything that they feel to be right. But if we can come to terms with it and endorse it then it frees us up and makes us able to love women properly and deeply. We don't have to be afraid of what women represent, and so many women, especially the feminists, don't need to be afraid of us men. best wishes, Nikolai

I think the first step is realising that you even hold a belief. It is seeing things as 'facts' that is the problem. Once the belief is recognised as such the battle is half won, although it will linger on out of habit for a while.

Hi et thoughts, I agree entirely. This is what Jesus said. But understanding this and doing this is the hardest thing imaginable. I'm also sure you have terrible difficulty getting people to understand this. To people who think that the spiritual life is about eradicating evil - to love evil, and to accept it and endorse it is not only illogical - but might well be a form of evil. Many apparently spiritual people can't help but think that evil must be revealed, fought against and eradicated. Only when you realise with your spiritual wisdom that you are not who you think you are, and that evil has no capacity to harm the real you (only the false you), only then will you be in a position to love evil, and ot eradicate it. This thread, and my own contributions have been more about spiritual wisdom, indeed my own path as a seeker has been as a thinker as much as a meditator. What you contribute here is the path of love, a path as sure and direct to spiritual peace - but just as hard to grasp! The ideas you present are so beautiful and so true - but I'm sure you get wildly misunderstood by many people! In Zen Buddhism they say there are three stages 1) Form is form (or multiplicity is multiplicity - ie the common sense view) 2) Form is emptiness (that multiplicity is in fact unity) 3) Form is form I think you are referring to the third of these stages which is the realisation that form is form when it is form and emptiness is emptiness when it is emptiness. I'm glad you poin out the need to transcend the notion of there being two perspectives - form and emptiness. You are correct to do so. In my view though, the vast majority of spiritual seekers are still at stage 1 - and remain there their whole lives. It is a considerable spiritual acheivement to see that all the separation and multiplicity is also unity and togetherness. This insight is analagous to your recognition that opposing evil only increases evil. You must have noticed how few seekers acheive this perspective and merely crave it. There is a danger that a stage 2 insight merely replaces the common sense stage 1 insight. When this happens people fall into the trap of apathy and nihilism that we discussed earlier. The analogy of this would be those people who reject the notion of good deeds because there is no good and bad. These people are still at stage 1, although they have swapped it with stage 2. So the insight into unity is only of spiritual value of it occurs alongside, as a complement, to their common sense insight into multiplicity. For these people the insight into stage automatically leads to stage 3, which is spiritual vision - beyond unity and multiplicity, as you correctly state. I didn't understand this passage too well so perhaps you could elaborate a bit, thanks! Best wishes, Nikolai

Hi et thoughts, Thank you! And the same to you for your thoughtful replies. The big problem with trying to discuss spiritual insight is that we can only present one dimension of it at a time. This can give people the impression that our undestanding is incomplete. I have emphasised the emptiness of the ego - and I think you were quite rightly presenting the other side of the picture - the fullness of the ego. Now if you were doing this to show that emptiness is an error and fullness is the truth then you would be acting egoically. But if you were just presenting the other side of the argument just to make sure I wasn't egoically presenting emptiness as the whole truth, I think you were wise to do so. Talking about spirituality is so hazardous. If we want, for the sake of our audience, to be logical we must present one-sided but incomplete arguments. If we want, for the sake of our audience, to be truthful we must present two-sided but paradoxical arguments. Both are highly likely to be misunderstood. At the end of the day, we can only talk and trust that the wise will hear us. I completely understand your concern. Teaching emptiness can certainly lead to apathy and nihilism. But you have to take the risk! And you have to make sure that you always remind people of the fullness as well. Without understanding both fullness and emptiness the true spiritual nature of the ego won't be understood anyway. Compassion and the ethical life will therefore be misguided. We won't know what is truly best for a person because we will only be able to understand other people as mortals living in time and space. We will be haunted by concerns for their physical welfare and won't therefore have the courage and the trust to do what might seem risky. True understanding gives you the trust and the confidence to do what is best for people, both spiritually and physically. I realise that I've probably answered this above, but I'll elaborate. The cultivation of the fullness of phenomena is to encourage the view that we are all individuals enduring in time and space, in the company of other individuals and objects that also exist in time and space. In other words, the world view is one of multiplicity and separation - the common sense worldview. Many people understand the spiritual life to be the attempt to overcome the separation by forging bonds of love, through help and compassion and though cooperation. This is how they understand how to achive the unity that many spiritual seekers crave. I don't want to criticise such noble aims - but there are many difficulties with this life. Firstly, it is very difficult to know what is the right action in any given situation. What is good for one person, may be bad for the next person. Or what seems good at the time might turn out to be be harmful. Also, we might do a good deed for a person and they do not appreciate what you have done and so your spiritual aim, which is unity with this person, goes unrealised. What I am saying is that we can never achieve the unity we crave as long as we are separated people attemptng to behave and act in a way to bring it about. We have to know, understand and believe in the unity already. It has to be such a conviction within us that we don't actually need to achieve it through acts. The sense of unity must be already there. So how can we undertand and belive in unity? We have to see that the separation is kind of illusion. We have to see that our own individuated ego and that of others is a kind of illusion. To see this is the purpose of meditation as well as the teachings of Buddha (impermanence, dependent origination) or the philsophical scepticism of a person like Chuang-tzu. These teachings show that our separation is nothing more than a kind of opinion, and that experience itself shows that we are both unified and separate. To belief that we are only separated is like believing that the handle is on the right hand side of the cup and can in no circumstances be on the left. Only when we are free from the illusion of separateness are we free to effectively help others. Until then we will be confused, and be trying to offer help to people we think are mortals. We will have to decide what os the best possible good for that person. Usually everything we will be reduced down to the attempt to promote a fellow person's health, happiness and longevity. And yet very often these things can only be achieved in one person at the expense of another's. And so we get very confused and bogged down, and eventually we become crippled by inaction anyway. But we have a true understanding of the nature of our fellow people we will not suffer any such doubt. It will laways be clear to us how to act, even if we won't be able to lay out out our behaviours in to a set of 'does and don'ts' - a system of morality. Morality is for people who don't undertsand the spiritual life - which is why it says in the Tao Te Chiing that the 'sage disregards morality and so is the epitome of morality'. Thank you for reading my rather long reply! Best wishes, Nikolai

Hi et thoughts, I can't help but invoke past present and future when I talk about impermanence, but that doesn't mean I am trapped in time. The infinite eternal enduring now is the place You are when you see all the high speed passing. When you are in it you are in it, but to talk about means to descend from it. But your last post shows to me that you understand all that I have to say very well. Yes, this is a common objection. It usually comes from people who are unable to understand the True Self and so understand terms like I, me, mine only egoically. They therefore think that I am claiming that everything passes except me, Nikolai. That is egotistical - in fact it's called solipsism and not far from a kind of mental disease! I think you do understand the true self, but perhaps you don't believe that I do too - and that makes you think that I am writing egoically and that concerns you. What I was trying to make clear is that thought can understood as 'about' something (ie relatively, egoically) or a thing in itself (absolutely, non-egoically). Thought itself is therefore neither of these. I agree with you that 'thought can only be bound by thought'. In fact exxpanding the boundaries of thought is expanding the boundaries of the ego. Yes, and I think for some the rejection of the ego is a kind of illusion. It's called the Emptiness Trap. It's why in this whole thread I've been keen to preserve the ego. When you understand the ego truly, it is not a barrier to the spiritual life and it is not a barrier to the egoic life. That is why I have called this thread The Spiritual Splendour of the Ego! Those who understand this thread correctly will see that notions of existence and non-existence are completely transcended. It just happens to be the case that most spiritual seekers in this day and age need to be reminded of the emptiness of phenomena. There is a danger that emptiness and non-existence is taken as some kind of truth. Unfortunately though, people still need to hear the 'non-existence argument' in order to be able to harmonise it with their common-sense 'existence argument' and therein gain spiritual wisdom. best wishes, Nikolai

Hi Stosh, Your ego is not something that you can eradicate - it is with you whatever you do. The ego is only a bad thing (from the spiritual perspective) if it goes misunderstood. By believing in something that is non-existent we cause ourselves to suffer. Once we see the true nature of the ego we become detached from it and are then free to enjoy how wonderful it is. I think all those with spiritual insight have moved beyound the good/evil paradigm. That said, it is good for the philosophically minded seeker to reflect on the relativity of these terms - and how something can be simultaneously good and bad depending on the perspective. But spiritual security is recognising that, in a sense, all is good and there is no need to fear anything. It is only when we are free from fear that we are able to forget about good and evil. Paradoxically, when we forget about good and evil we are able to act well and compassionately. As is says in the Tao Te Ching - the sage forgets about morality so is therefore the epitome of morality. All this is based on the common sense view of the world and shows no spiritual understanding. You should read my last post to 'et-thoughts'. Best wishes, Nikolai

Hi et-thoughts, If it seems self-evident then this is the delusion of egohood. All things arise and then pass at very high speed. When they are passed they become non-existent. This is the Buddhist teaching of impermanence. There is nothing at all in existence except for what is before you right now. Sometimes our here and now reality is shadowy and dim. We tend to call this 'thought'. Sometimes the here and now is bright and vivid. We tend to call this 'reality'. But actually this distinction is untenable. 'Thought' is not 'about' anything in so-called reality, but is a present here and now reality in itself. 'Thought' is therefore not subjective and reality is not objective. Insight into impermanence eradicates the subjective/objective distinction altogether. Who witnesses all this 'thought' amd 'reality'? The witness is awareness itself. Awareness is the path of Tao and awakening to it is the realisation that we are not, and never were, some kind of individual ego interacting with an external territory. What, then is the ego? The ego is nothing other than a kind of picture drawn by awareness. It is the sum total of our spiritual wisdom rationalised into a kind of metaphor. Once we are able to understand the ego as such - as a kind of picture drawn - then we are free to open up beyond the ego. We no longer believe in the ego nor the laws of the world that keep the ego in check. We are emancipated from selfhood into the eternal. This is the goal of all spiritual seekers. It is believing in ourselves as egos that holds us back. As VMarco said Best wishes, Nikolai

Hi et thoughts - could you tell me more so I fully understand you thanks, nikolai

The memories and the imaginations are manifestations in themselves. I think there is a tacit dualism in your question. You think that there is a subjective realm whose contents can either stay subjective, or 'manifest' in reality. If you think this way then you will be wondering forever! A thought is the manifestation. There is no difference between your 'thoughts' and your 'perceptions'. Even though your 'thoughts' may seem shadowy and dim and your perceptions bright and clear you must learn that they are the same thing. Only then will your shadowy thoughts appear as bright and illumined as your perceptions do now. It will help if you realise that your 'thoughts' are not 'about' anything but are here and now realities in themselves. The illusion is that our thoughts refer to independently existing events that either occurred or shall occur in time. This is only half the story. A thought is both 'about' something, and is also a here-and-now thing in itself. You must learn to recognise both aspects. The ego does not have a job and there is no physical reality to focus you in. Physical reality and the subjective thought realm are the same. The ego is just one of the things that crops up sporadically, as does everything else. I hope this helps, Nikolai

Thanks for all your amazing posts!

Been lurking here for a while but finally decided to say something!