Angry with prayers

[Vyana]

These last days I have noticed that I am actually getting angry with some prayers which I am supposed to recite at yoga classes. The wording differs, but some prayers are on the theme "I am so miserable. Please help me out of this misery!" (I am exaggerating a bit, but...) Maybe, it%rsquos just me, but well; I am not miserable, and I don%rsquot need such projections!!

Today I tortured myself, sitting for hours singing such prayers. It sure was tough. DB had a lot of fun though. She was obviously rather surprised of finding me involved in such an activity, and was roaring with laughter.

[Mystress]

I'm laughing too. Reminds me of myself as a Catholic schoolgirl, mentally editing out the parts of the hymns and prayers which say "Lord have mercy on us sinners... etc. Why would unconditional love need any of that noise?

 Still, I was not angry. It made you angry so there is a mirror to look at. Blessings!

: These last days I have noticed that I am actually getting angry with some prayers which I am supposed to recite at yoga classes. The wording differs, but some prayers are on the theme "I am so miserable. Please help me out of this misery!" (I am exaggerating a bit, but...) Maybe, it%rsquos just me, but well; I am not miserable, and I don%rsquot need such projections!!

: Today I tortured myself, sitting for hours singing such prayers. It sure was tough. DB had a lot of fun though. She was obviously rather surprised of finding me involved in such an activity, and was roaring with laughter.

[Vyana]

Yes, you are probably right. Basically, I am instinctively afraid to integrate some of the limiting beliefs behind those prayers. The ongoing opening of my heart chakra seems to affect my whole life, so that my expectations turn real to a degree that did not happen before (or maybe it is just that I was not aware of it). So, if I start to believe I am miserable and in need of help, who knows how such limiting beliefs would manifest in my life? I am finished with perceiving myself as miserable and helpless.

Then I tend to think that the people who made those prayers should be aware of this problem and that they should therefore have avoided such projections of helplessness upon the people using their prayers. Thus I forget that people learn things %ndash or rather let go of beliefs %ndash in different order. Their paths were not the same as mine. And they also had to se to the need of their disciples.

But this is probably just the top of an iceberg. I suppose I generally tend to se people who are not aware of the inner reality, or have not learned the things that I have, as being in the need of that knowledge. I also tend to think that people who perceive themselves as miserable and ask for divine help even when they are not should know better. So, I suppose I also perceive the students at this course as in the need of the knowledge and pity those who do not participate in the course. So, basically I have a lot of judgements about what other people believe and should believe, when I should just trust that they are the gods of their own life and that Goddess has it handled so that everything is indeed perfect.

By the way: getting angry, is that what "bugs" means? (In "If it bugs you, it%rsquos yours.")

: I'm laughing too. Reminds me of myself as a Catholic schoolgirl, mentally editing out the parts of the hymns and prayers which say "Lord have mercy on us sinners... etc. Why would unconditional love need any of that noise?

:   Still, I was not angry. It made you angry so there is a mirror to look at. Blessings!

[Gustaf]

I was noticing this, too at a recent retreat where we were learning and chanting mantras.. I've noticed this too especially the last year - last 6 month..   With verses that talk about "defeating the demons.. " the insight that came up was "nuh uh, I don't want to create more of that stuff thank you very much!"  

: I'm laughing too. Reminds me of myself as a Catholic schoolgirl, mentally editing out the parts of the hymns and prayers which say "Lord have mercy on us sinners... etc. Why would unconditional love need any of that noise?

:   Still, I was not angry. It made you angry so there is a mirror to look at. Blessings!  

: : These last days I have noticed that I am actually getting angry with some prayers which I am supposed to recite at yoga classes. The wording differs, but some prayers are on the theme "I am so miserable. Please help me out of this misery!" (I am exaggerating a bit, but...) Maybe, it%rsquos just me, but well; I am not miserable, and I don%rsquot need such projections!!

: : Today I tortured myself, sitting for hours singing such prayers. It sure was tough. DB had a lot of fun though. She was obviously rather surprised of finding me involved in such an activity, and was roaring with laughter.

[Mystress]

: Yes, you are probably right. Basically, I am instinctively afraid to integrate some of the limiting beliefs behind those prayers.

It is good to become mindful of your influences and discerning about what you choose to believe.

 Realize too, that the prayers are honest, most people are miserable and scared of the Divine. The intent is to promote humility and show respect. Social behavior from a patriachal culture with a strong caste system.  

:The ongoing opening of my heart chakra seems to affect my whole life, so that my expectations turn real to a degree that did not happen before (or maybe it is just that I was not aware of it).

A little bit of both. Everyone is God of their own life, and every thought is a prayer, but not believing it reduces the power of thoughts. The inner contradictions of ego dilute the message. As you become more conscious and transparent there does seem to be more of an "instant karma" effect, to help you to learn to surrender more deeply.

In a way, there is safety in a Zen master's silent mind, living in the moment. No thoughts, no accidental manifestations, no expectations when you live in the Now.  

: So, if I start to believe I am miserable and in need of help, who knows how such limiting beliefs would manifest in my life? I am finished with perceiving myself as miserable and helpless.

Yay!

: Then I tend to think that the people who made those prayers should be aware of this problem and that they should therefore have avoided such projections of helplessness upon the people using their prayers. Thus I forget that people learn things %ndash or rather let go of beliefs %ndash in different order. Their paths were not the same as mine. And they also had to se to the need of their disciples.

: But this is probably just the top of an iceberg. I suppose I generally tend to se people who are not aware of the inner reality, or have not learned the things that I have, as being in the need of that knowledge. I also tend to think that people who perceive themselves as miserable and ask for divine help even when they are not should know better. So, I suppose I also perceive the students at this course as in the need of the knowledge and pity those who do not participate in the course. So, basically I have a lot of judgements about what other people believe and should believe, when I should just trust that they are the gods of their own life and that Goddess has it handled so that everything is indeed perfect.

Yeah, remember your wings.

: By the way: getting angry, is that what "bugs" means? (In "If it bugs you, it%rsquos yours.")

Yeah. Bugs = bothers, annoys, irritates.

: : I'm laughing too. Reminds me of myself as a Catholic schoolgirl, mentally editing out the parts of the hymns and prayers which say "Lord have mercy on us sinners... etc. Why would unconditional love need any of that noise?

: :   Still, I was not angry. It made you angry so there is a mirror to look at. Blessings!  

[Vyana]

Thank you! Than I believe I understand this!

Regarding "bugs":

Okay, then I suppose that when I am affected by the actions of my bullies, and those effects make me sad, this does not necessarily mean that I am bugged by their behaviour. Is that correct?

By the way; I am really fascinated by those higher self%rsquos and I have realised that people I spontaneously like have similar qualities, although to a lesser degree.

: : By the way: getting angry, is that what "bugs" means? (In "If it bugs you, it%rsquos yours.")

:   Yeah. Bugs = bothers, annoys, irritates.

[Vyana]

Yes, that%rsquos a good one Gustaf! I certainly don%rsquot want to create a bunch of angry demons chasing me! (Or ghosts or wild animals with sharp fangs or fierce enemies with spears and swords or anything from which an ancient farmer might have thought he needed divine protection.) Then there is also the praise of several deities and gurus of which I actually don%rsquot know anything. I don%rsquot know if I really appreciate what they stand for and their conduct might not always have been the best in all respects. Some of the texts make that point rather clear! Actually, this is rather funny when you look more closely at the texts! What really made me pissed of was although the parts about me being so miserable and in need of diverse divine interference to be able to handle my life. It was as if every cell in my body protested against that. That%rsquos maybe also because I have spent too much time feeling miserable %ndash and for exactly no use at all. But by now, I am mostly laughing at it (although I still feel a kind of warning in my bones: "don%rsquot go there!").  

: I was noticing this, too at a recent retreat where we were learning and chanting mantras.. I've noticed this too especially the last year - last 6 month..   With verses that talk about "defeating the demons.. " the insight that came up was "nuh uh, I don't want to create more of that stuff thank you very much!"

[edward]

Vyana and Gustaf,

I beginning to wonder if all are synchronized

This weekend I turned on the different chant-songs
I have on my iTunes. There is a line in a song going like this "I am falling at your lotus feet to get relief from this pain...". That save me from the pain part just didn't felt right.

However, at several points in my life it was good to sing those lines, but now I feel I have grown out of that kind of "help me mode".

Edward

: I was noticing this, too at a recent retreat where we were learning and chanting mantras.. I've noticed this too especially the last year - last 6 month..   With verses that talk about "defeating the demons.. " the insight that came up was "nuh uh, I don't want to create more of that stuff thank you very much!"  

[juergen]

: These last days I have noticed that I am actually getting angry with some prayers which I am supposed to recite at yoga classes. The wording differs, but some prayers are on the theme "I am so miserable. Please help me out of this misery!" (I am exaggerating a bit, but...) Maybe, it%rsquos just me, but well; I am not miserable, and I don%rsquot need such projections!!

: Today I tortured myself, sitting for hours singing such prayers. It sure was tough. DB had a lot of fun though. She was obviously rather surprised of finding me involved in such an activity, and was roaring with laughter.

[juergen]

Great observation, Vyana!

It reminds me of a classical situation between fem/male:

She, a teasing giggling of wisdom; he, oh so sour!

It came to my mind that this "standard" is also reflected in the old war between solar religion and the lunar path; i think that yoga, catholic church, buddhism and many others, have this in common: a theme of miserable angry men; as long as we show these signs we are not totally converted. We are not yet free to burst out in laughing spontaneously, like our better half does.

Although reason and insights distance us from patriarchy, it still can keep us in its clutches, for a while.

But finally, as angriness washes away, i think this is a good sign showing that submission/conversion advances too.

To observe so clearly, as you did, is shurely a hint of advancement:-)

In the last few days i'm growingly fond of "Girlhood", carrying always that word on the mind. There is a vibrating feeling of socializing, co-swinging with this presence of "Girlhood", a bit like drunk. An alignment with Woman's progress in general, success, and welfare too(and Her probably taking over),from the heart.

Had a long struggle with this: always having had strong sympathy for the fem-movement - shure - but with a rest of reserve, a pocket of resistance, an aspect of male rebellion; sensed it in other men as well, who were mostly less aware of it than me, galore examples in contemporary literature(films). Often with words saying one thing where mimics reveal the contrary.

One guy was stoically repeating(cursing?): "Women always win". I had just lost a game of chess against a swift young lady, who studied for concert-pianist. I must have looked very pitiful, because he repeated it again and again, women always win, as to comfort me, so it's indelible on my mind now. In the next moment, he arged with them(there were still a few more corypheic girls):"You'd better stayed home and marry, so you would be happier"(They were all Corean, the girls to study abroad, Mr. Kim was a foreign-factory-worker).

I'm telling this, because i think, it's a major and widespread cause of blockage, a root of evil, more than worthwhile giving it up.

I don't know, if the struggle is completely over now, but it's edge seems broken, wow! - Maybe a synchronicity to your event as well.

happy Halloween or however all of you call it!

juergen.

: These last days I have noticed that I am actually getting angry with some prayers which I am supposed to recite at yoga classes. The wording differs, but some prayers are on the theme "I am so miserable. Please help me out of this misery!" (I am exaggerating a bit, but...) Maybe, it%rsquos just me, but well; I am not miserable, and I don%rsquot need such projections!!

: Today I tortured myself, sitting for hours singing such prayers. It sure was tough. DB had a lot of fun though. She was obviously rather surprised of finding me involved in such an activity, and was roaring with laughter.

[Vyana]

Now, I too tend to agree with Edward; we might all be synchronized!

Actually, I was never sour when singing the mantras, only plagued and mostly by the uncomfortable sitting positions. And when I noticed that DB was laughing, I had to laugh too, although quietly. I certainly understood her point; it was funny!

Your concept of girlhood, I associate with higher self%rsquos and with children, which are somehow so close to Goddess. Actually, I few days ago I started writing a post on how fascinated I am by higher self%rsquos and children and how much I have learned from them.

I have always loved and even adored women and the traditional female qualities %ndash not so much of a struggle here %ndash but I never come to like all aspects of the fem-movement. However, that is mostly because how it is understood in my country, where it is really pre-dominant, in newspapers and in parts of society, almost like a state-religion.

The problem is how female %ldquoliberation%rdquo is interpreted as women adopting typical male behaviour. The result is that we are getting quite a few women taking up really bad male behaviour and getting praised for it.

If a man goes abroad to have a lot of sex and them comes home to boast about it, he would probably risk getting lynched in the streets for his view on women. But if a woman does the same with foreign men, she can even write about it in the newspapers and get praised like a hero. Now, I don%rsquot mind women having fun, as long as that is what they really like to do, but I cannot really understand the difference.

Also when women are promoted most of them tend to get obsessed by power and forget all about traditional female qualities. In stead they start to expose behaviours which are worse than the worse male managers would ever dare thinking of. And often enough they get away with it, because nobody dare to complain, as it%rsquos not considered politically correct to criticise a female manager.

This form of feminism doesn%rsquot make any sense to me. Nor do I perceive it as very %ldquogirlish%rdquo %ndash or typical female. Actually, these are not female qualities at all, but rather some of the worse male qualities practised by women.

There are certainly enough traditional women left for me to feel really fine and not bother much about this, but I suppose there might sometimes be a good reason when so many men prefer to go abroad to find a wife these days.

: Great observation, Vyana!

: It reminds me of a classical situation between fem/male:

: She, a teasing giggling of wisdom; he, oh so sour!

:
: It came to my mind that this "standard" is also reflected in the old war between solar religion and the lunar path; i think that yoga, catholic church, buddhism and many others, have this in common: a theme of miserable angry men; as long as we show these signs we are not totally converted. We are not yet free to burst out in laughing spontaneously, like our better half does.

: Although reason and insights distance us from patriarchy, it still can keep us in its clutches, for a while.

: But finally, as angriness washes away, i think this is a good sign showing that submission/conversion advances too.

: To observe so clearly, as you did, is shurely a hint of advancement:-)

: In the last few days i'm growingly fond of "Girlhood", carrying always that word on the mind. There is a vibrating feeling of socializing, co-swinging with this presence of "Girlhood", a bit like drunk. An alignment with Woman's progress in general, success, and welfare too(and Her probably taking over),from the heart.

: Had a long struggle with this: always having had strong sympathy for the fem-movement - shure - but with a rest of reserve, a pocket of resistance, an aspect of male rebellion; sensed it in other men as well, who were mostly less aware of it than me, galore examples in contemporary literature(films). Often with words saying one thing where mimics reveal the contrary.

: One guy was stoically repeating(cursing?): "Women always win". I had just lost a game of chess against a swift young lady, who studied for concert-pianist. I must have looked very pitiful, because he repeated it again and again, women always win, as to comfort me, so it's indelible on my mind now. In the next moment, he arged with them(there were still a few more corypheic girls):"You'd better stayed home and marry, so you would be happier"(They were all Corean, the girls to study abroad, Mr. Kim was a foreign-factory-worker).

: I'm telling this, because i think, it's a major and widespread cause of blockage, a root of evil, more than worthwhile giving it up.

: I don't know, if the struggle is completely over now, but it's edge seems broken, wow! - Maybe a synchronicity to your event as well.

: happy Halloween or however all of you call it!

: juergen.

[edward]

Yes, yes. For my part the adoration for women has actually grown. Usually I compliment many of
the women at my workplace several times a day, and
today the lady in the reception said "Edward,
you are so fascinated by us women, you just wanna be like us".

: I have always loved and even adored women and the traditional female qualities %ndash not so much of a struggle here %ndash but I never come to like all aspects of the fem-movement. However, that is mostly because how it is understood in my country, where it is really pre-dominant, in newspapers and in parts of society, almost like a state-religion.

: The problem is how female %ldquoliberation%rdquo is interpreted as women adopting typical male behaviour. The result is that we are getting quite a few women taking up really bad male behaviour and getting praised for it.

I have considered this, and I have played with the following idea:

Still there is not balance between the sexes (or between the female and male energies) in this phase of civilization. the "male" qualities have been dominant, and still are in general. and to weigh that up on the other side, there has to be
a an unbalance also with women - I mean women do need to have those typical bad "male" qualities before the optimal balance between the sexes can be achieved.

You need to go to the other extreme point from the one you were, to find the balance.

With the general "male-ization" of women, we also see that there is a general femininization of men in the society. e.g. metro-sexual men like David Beckham, men shaving away their hair, etc.

Todays women (and society in general) is a product  of many years of suppression, and offcourse when the suppression gradually fades, the society will not restore itself to the optimal "normal" mode before it has ridden of the chock by first experiencing the extreme opposite side of the values that have been

: Also when women are promoted most of them tend to get obsessed by power and forget all about traditional female qualities. In stead they start to expose behaviours which are worse than the worse male managers would ever dare thinking of. And often enough they get away with it, because nobody dare to complain, as it%rsquos not considered politically correct to criticise a female manager.

Most of them? Maybe they have to be like that to survive in a male-dominated work enviroment.

Still, I do very well understand what you mean. I have always preferred men (or boys as I like to call them) as bosses at work. Why? Because boys are much easier to manipulate when playing with their egos. I can use both my skills and knowledge  I have about men, since I'm already a boy, and know how we function - and use my feminine/"gayish" tacticts because I'm touch with Samantha (I call the female part of my brain that)

And when it comes to women, you can't do that. Generally they are much more intellectually challenging, and it's harder to use flattery to "achieve" something, because women don't have such  big egos as men do.

: There are certainly enough traditional women left for me to feel really fine and not bother much about this, but I suppose there might sometimes be a good reason when so many men prefer to go abroad to find a wife these days.

Hmm. Maybe the men themselves are the reason?

Oh boy, synchronization: A fiend of mine just called (he has just ended a relationship with his girlfriend, and his female collegues at work are behaving badly) he said: Why should I suffer as a man for something other men have done against women in earlier times?

Edward

[juergen]

Thanks for your reply, Vyana, very interesting thoughts about an interesting theme, one could write encyclopedic volumes!

Yeah we synchronize, somethings in the air!

To start, first the easiest issue: Girlhood I relate to the Devine Beloved, there is a timeless aspect of Girlhood in the kind of women i adore. Now it appears, She's taking me over!
The Higher Self, mhh, still waiting for me.

Angry. It's ok, words can be misleading, indeed angry can mean: "not angry at all, just laughing", I know; for example in the region around Cologne where I grew up, they call people "slim" if they really are slim, but also "slim", if they are pretty heavy!

There is a tragic disaster about women, as if Parsifal must have been originally fem.
While you might think, this and this Lady has already "received the Grail", she'll probably dissapoint you after a while; women seem so incredible near and though often fail. This has been my constant impression how ever far i look back.

I'm obviously a bit impatient here, the pace of evolution cannot be judged.

But there's change.

I noticed a certain inclination to complain about the conditions as you told, and i would maybe a little more relax:

One thing is newspapers; lol!, i read a story about Ramakrishna, that he would'nt even dwell in a room, where a newspaper were on the sofa; ha ha ha ha: the host would first remove it or he say bye bye! Ok newspapers are not the world, better to turn the gaze somewhere else.

Although our appearance as fem or male seems to be chiefly just external, constitutional, its significance is obvious on the external plane, here, where outrageous, untraditional women buy them giggolos abroad.

I want to relate another case of an untraditional woman:

Recently i've seen a report about the army, relating to the special innovation that fems are regularly accepted to the armed forces here in Germany only since about 5 years.

After these nearly 5 years, some fems have undergone enough training so to educate male novices in military combat techniques, and this film was exactly about this.

So this seemed very much in touch with the Here and Now, quite actual, a premiere.

Normally i don't view myself among militarists, but there was very much i liked what i saw, it was quite exciting: that quite ordinary looking young woman commanding a bunch of some thirty guys, and how well she did and how it worked!

She managed the troup from the first day with a sort of benevolent strictness, that was amazing, and the boys jumped to Her words perfectly; one boy was interviewed about his views of being a recrutee under female instruction, and his comments were cute: "Yes, there had been rumors since a while that girls would get full admission to the Troups but i did not expect it would happen so fast; but after these few weeks, it feels quite normal for me, no problem; we had fem teachers at school as well, or it could also be compared with a mother; it seems that under a woman, we guys are even eager to give more of ourselves!...".

Afterward i had a kind of fantasy, which was built on a standard from the Asterix-comic: that the guys would carry her on a shield in the style how the Gauls(the Gaul-village-people) carry their Majestix; they had a good atmosphere in that little bunch, in the case of a competition i would bet on them.
I made other observances which confirm this.

From the mindset, there may be no or not much difference: fems and males vote for the same
rabble-rousers with nearly equal percentage, usually we find sympathic as well as unsympatic people in both genders, reagardless of our own sexual identy.

While the mindset is nearly the same, men are much more likely to be put on record than women, it's a cliché, but why is that? Are men just so stupid to get caught while women do not? Speculative terrain here. To me it seems that men have already the finger on the trigger, while fems are still hesitant about buying a gun. Men are likelier to be tempted. Angrier. Soothed by women but still angry. Needing energy to fight angriness, while women advance.

There are faster and slower cars, one and the same person can drive the slow car or the fast car. We are politically correct saying that it is still the same person, but(DivBel's already roaring) nobody would believe that!!!

Women drive the faster cars and men feel miserable about it.

Or: As women we drive the faster cars, as men we feel miserable about that.

Here lies the struggle, or my resistance which is hopefully ebbing.

One thing is to get that clear.

Another cake, to integrate it, to become able to love women for their fast car, to love them having fun with every bunch of males or women or whatever they indulge in, making experiences.

To seek for progress at their side.

First love, then concerns and objections, but with patience, Gandhi style.

What happens then, is totally in the void for me, i.e. i don't see and don't bother.

This is what just came to me as a reply and will imediately be sent to the world wide web, without fear and trrrrrembling.

Love,

juergen.

: Now, I too tend to agree with Edward; we might all be synchronized!

: Actually, I was never sour when singing the mantras, only plagued and mostly by the uncomfortable sitting positions. And when I noticed that DB was laughing, I had to laugh too, although quietly. I certainly understood her point; it was funny!

: Your concept of girlhood, I associate with higher self%rsquos and with children, which are somehow so close to Goddess. Actually, I few days ago I started writing a post on how fascinated I am by higher self%rsquos and children and how much I have learned from them.

: I have always loved and even adored women and the traditional female qualities %ndash not so much of a struggle here %ndash but I never come to like all aspects of the fem-movement. However, that is mostly because how it is understood in my country, where it is really pre-dominant, in newspapers and in parts of society, almost like a state-religion.

: The problem is how female %ldquoliberation%rdquo is interpreted as women adopting typical male behaviour. The result is that we are getting quite a few women taking up really bad male behaviour and getting praised for it.

: If a man goes abroad to have a lot of sex and them comes home to boast about it, he would probably risk getting lynched in the streets for his view on women. But if a woman does the same with foreign men, she can even write about it in the newspapers and get praised like a hero. Now, I don%rsquot mind women having fun, as long as that is what they really like to do, but I cannot really understand the difference.

: Also when women are promoted most of them tend to get obsessed by power and forget all about traditional female qualities. In stead they start to expose behaviours which are worse than the worse male managers would ever dare thinking of. And often enough they get away with it, because nobody dare to complain, as it%rsquos not considered politically correct to criticise a female manager.

: This form of feminism doesn%rsquot make any sense to me. Nor do I perceive it as very %ldquogirlish%rdquo %ndash or typical female. Actually, these are not female qualities at all, but rather some of the worse male qualities practised by women.

: There are certainly enough traditional women left for me to feel really fine and not bother much about this, but I suppose there might sometimes be a good reason when so many men prefer to go abroad to find a wife these days.

: : Great observation, Vyana!

: : It reminds me of a classical situation between fem/male:

: : She, a teasing giggling of wisdom; he, oh so sour!

: :
: : It came to my mind that this "standard" is also reflected in the old war between solar religion and the lunar path; i think that yoga, catholic church, buddhism and many others, have this in common: a theme of miserable angry men; as long as we show these signs we are not totally converted. We are not yet free to burst out in laughing spontaneously, like our better half does.

: : Although reason and insights distance us from patriarchy, it still can keep us in its clutches, for a while.

: : But finally, as angriness washes away, i think this is a good sign showing that submission/conversion advances too.

: : To observe so clearly, as you did, is shurely a hint of advancement:-)

: : In the last few days i'm growingly fond of "Girlhood", carrying always that word on the mind. There is a vibrating feeling of socializing, co-swinging with this presence of "Girlhood", a bit like drunk. An alignment with Woman's progress in general, success, and welfare too(and Her probably taking over),from the heart.

: : Had a long struggle with this: always having had strong sympathy for the fem-movement - shure - but with a rest of reserve, a pocket of resistance, an aspect of male rebellion; sensed it in other men as well, who were mostly less aware of it than me, galore examples in contemporary literature(films). Often with words saying one thing where mimics reveal the contrary.

: : One guy was stoically repeating(cursing?): "Women always win". I had just lost a game of chess against a swift young lady, who studied for concert-pianist. I must have looked very pitiful, because he repeated it again and again, women always win, as to comfort me, so it's indelible on my mind now. In the next moment, he arged with them(there were still a few more corypheic girls):"You'd better stayed home and marry, so you would be happier"(They were all Corean, the girls to study abroad, Mr. Kim was a foreign-factory-worker).

: : I'm telling this, because i think, it's a major and widespread cause of blockage, a root of evil, more than worthwhile giving it up.

: : I don't know, if the struggle is completely over now, but it's edge seems broken, wow! - Maybe a synchronicity to your event as well.

: : happy Halloween or however all of you call it!

: : juergen.

[Vyana]

Thank you juergen and Edward! They are really interesting.

Here are some of my internalised ideas (misconceptions?) regarding typical female (girlish?) traits:

1. While boys tend to perceive reality as changing and to plan ahead, girls tend to focus on their feelings in relation to how things are right now. When a boy is complaining about how things are, he normally wants them to change %ndash and preferably he wants to change them himself. When a girl is complaining she often just wants sympathy (which is often misunderstood by the boy, who believes she wants him to change things for her).

2. Boys think they are strong when they have the power to change things. Girls think they are strong when they have the strength to accept things as they are and stay unaffected by them. Therefore, women endure tough conditions better than men.

3. The typical male traits make a good leader when there is a need to accomplish something, such as win a war or reach a goal. The typical female traits make a good leader when there is a need to preserve status quo and still preserve good interpersonal relations and keep people happy.

4. For girls, relations are often the most important thing. For boys they just happen while they are busy planning and doing other things.

5. Girls think a lot about personal relations and their feelings regarding such. In relation to such they are more intellectual then boys. Therefore they tend to be more rational and plan ahead, when boys are more directly (and unconsciously) affected by their feelings.

6. When overwhelmed by strong emotions, girls often lose their focus even more than boys do, because emotions are their focus and they thought they would be rational (and maybe still believe they are, when they are very far from rational). For a boy it is normal to be strongly affected by emotions, while he has his focus on other things. He is used to it.

7. You cannot expect a girl not to be selfish, even if she appears as really unselfish. As her ego is focused on relations, it might be important for her to appear as if she did not think of herself first. But this is only as long as she considers this to be in her own best interest (which doesn%rsquot mean that it is); when it really matters to her she will most likely still put her own interests first.

(Actually, there seems to be some confusion between being egoistic and having an ego. A few months ago I visited an event where a therapist gave a lesson where he claimed that really small kids have big egos, because they only think of themselves. That didn%rsquot make any sense to me. Being unselfish can in many situations be the result of not have such a big ego. But on the other hand unselfish behaviour is probably much more often a trait of a rather big ego. And people with no ego (such as small kids) can often be much more selfish that people with big egos.)

[Vyana]

"Thank you for your posts", I meant to say!

: Thank you juergen and Edward! They are really interesting.

[Mystress]

: Thank you juergen and Edward! They are really interesting.

Yes they are! Thank you for sharing!

: Here are some of my internalised ideas (misconceptions?) regarding typical female (girlish?) traits:
:          
: 1. While boys tend to perceive reality as changing and to plan ahead, girls tend to focus on their feelings in relation to how things are right now.

I would say that is not true of me! Nor of most women... and it kind of contradicts your earlier statement... that women think ahead to the social implications of their actions and men do not. (Men do too, actually but their predictions are less accurate.)

: When a boy is complaining about how things are, he normally wants them to change %ndash and preferably he wants to change them himself. When a girl is complaining she often just wants sympathy (which is often misunderstood by the boy, who believes she wants him to change things for her).

Women often prefer to work out their problems by talking, "thinking out loud." It uses more parts of the brain than thinking alone.

This often makes men assume a woman is asking for help which is often annoying to women who really only want the support of a good listener. Let a woman talk long enough she will sort out her problems herself.  

: 2. Boys think they are strong when they have the power to change things. Girls think they are strong when they have the strength to accept things as they are and stay unaffected by them. Therefore, women endure tough conditions better than men.

I'd say feminism itself, throws out that theory. Women wanted change and got it, and felt strong. Women are more flexible and stronger, better able to endure hardships... women have a higher pain threshold... Nature did it... doesn't mean we like it!

: 3. The typical male traits make a good leader when there is a need to accomplish something, such as win a war or reach a goal. The typical female traits make a good leader when there is a need to preserve status quo and still preserve good interpersonal relations and keep people happy.

Cleopatra, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher...

: 4. For girls, relations are often the most important thing. For boys they just happen while they are busy planning and doing other things.

Women have a gene which is silent in men, which makes them able to see and understand relationships, society and human behavior better than men do.  So women get more knowledge of the social impacts of their actions, and take it into consideration where men are blind.
 I believe Kundalini turns the gene back on in men but I am not a scientist to be able to prove it!

: 5. Girls think a lot about personal relations and their feelings regarding such. In relation to such they are more intellectual then boys. Therefore they tend to be more rational and plan ahead, when boys are more directly (and unconsciously) affected by their feelings.

: 6. When overwhelmed by strong emotions, girls often lose their focus even more than boys do, because emotions are their focus and they thought they would be rational (and maybe still believe they are, when they are very far from rational). For a boy it is normal to be strongly affected by emotions, while he has his focus on other things. He is used to it.

I think you need to go back to the brain gender lesson... men and women have different brains, women use the whole brain where men use only one side at a time. Thus, while it appears men are able to switch off emotions... it is really that a man cannot be emotional and logical at the same time.  Statistically, most women who are murdered, (80%?) are murdered by their mate, the man in their lives. More men than women are in prison for a crime of passion... Because men use one side of the brain at a time, they are better able to compartmentalize or switch off their feelings and be singlemeinded, but if the feelings are overwhelming they are more likely to lose it because the divided brain is not as good at intepreting and understanding feelings.

: 7. You cannot expect a girl not to be selfish, even if she appears as really unselfish. As her ego is focused on relations, it might be important for her to appear as if she did not think of herself first. But this is only as long as she considers this to be in her own best interest (which doesn%rsquot mean that it is); when it really matters to her she will most likely still put her own interests first.

I dunno what to make of this one. Motherhood usually involves self sacrifice, and having noticed the profound emotional and psychological changes in some female friends by the experience of giving birth, I would say that womens selfishness is more about knowing that you have to take care of yourself first or you won't be able to care for another. That is the sort of "enlightened selfishness" I reccommend.

: (Actually, there seems to be some confusion between being egoistic and having an ego. A few months ago I visited an event where a therapist gave a lesson where he claimed that really small kids have big egos, because they only think of themselves. That didn%rsquot make any sense to me. Being unselfish can in many situations be the result of not have such a big ego. But on the other hand unselfish behaviour is probably much more often a trait of a rather big ego. And people with no ego (such as small kids) can often be much more selfish that people with big egos.)

A child's self centeredness isn't ego, it is nature.

 Blessings...

[juergen]

you may speak in riddles, we understand you though!
later more,

juergen

: "Thank you for your posts", I meant to say!

: : Thank you juergen and Edward! They are really interesting.

[Vyana]

: 1. While boys tend to perceive reality as changing and to plan ahead, girls tend to focus on their feelings in relation to how things are right now.
I would say that is not true of me! Nor of most women... and it kind of contradicts your earlier statement... that women think ahead to the social implications of their actions and men do not. (Men do too, actually but their predictions are less accurate.)

- There might be difference between American and European women. And then of course: You are exceptional in so many respects!

: 2. Boys think they are strong when they have the power to change things. Girls think they are strong when they have the strength to accept things as they are and stay unaffected by them. Therefore, women endure tough conditions better than men.
I'd say feminism itself, throws out that theory. Women wanted change and got it, and felt strong. Women are more flexible and stronger, better able to endure hardships... women have a higher pain threshold... Nature did it... doesn't mean we like it!

- The victory of feminism (which is probably greater in my country than anywhere else) does not prove so much about the tendency by individual women, as compared to men, to set goals and go for them. Instead you should ask questions such as what percentage of all women and what percentage of all men own their own business.

I remember that once when I was about 15 years old there was a test at school, where we were asked which qualities we wanted the most for ourselves. We boys were somewhat astonished to se that so many girls wanted %ldquostrength%rdquo before anything else. It took a while until we understood that they didn%rsquot mean physical strength.

: 3. The typical male traits make a good leader when there is a need to accomplish something, such as win a war or reach a goal. The typical female traits make a good leader when there is a need to preserve status quo and still preserve good interpersonal relations and keep people happy.
Cleopatra, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher...

- Exceptional people always stick out, don%rsquot they? (By the way, didn%rsquot Cleopatra loose the war?)

: 4. For girls, relations are often the most important thing. For boys they just happen while they are busy planning and doing other things.
Women have a gene which is silent in men, which makes them able to see and understand relationships, society and human behavior better than men do. So women get more knowledge of the social impacts of their actions, and take it into consideration where men are blind.
I believe Kundalini turns the gene back on in men but I am not a scientist to be able to prove it!

- This might be true, but I doubt it has been scientifically proven.

: 5. Girls think a lot about personal relations and their feelings regarding such. In relation to such they are more intellectual then boys. Therefore they tend to be more rational and plan ahead, when boys are more directly (and unconsciously) affected by their feelings.
: 6. When overwhelmed by strong emotions, girls often lose their focus even more than boys do, because emotions are their focus and they thought they would be rational (and maybe still believe they are, when they are very far from rational). For a boy it is normal to be strongly affected by emotions, while he has his focus on other things. He is used to it.
I think you need to go back to the brain gender lesson... men and women have different brains, women use the whole brain where men use only one side at a time. Thus, while it appears men are able to switch off emotions... it is really that a man cannot be emotional and logical at the same time. Statistically, most women who are murdered, (80%?) are murdered by their mate, the man in their lives. More men than women are in prison for a crime of passion... Because men use one side of the brain at a time, they are better able to compartmentalize or switch off their feelings and be singlemeinded, but if the feelings are overwhelming they are more likely to lose it because the divided brain is not as good at intepreting and understanding feelings.

- Sorry, but I don't really know how to relate to that lesson, as most of this doesn%rsquot sound that scientific to me at all - although parts it might of course still be true. The idea that men use only one side of the brain at a time is although obviously false. Of course, you cannot really mean that!

And the argument that the connection between the hemispheres is smaller in a male brain sounds very similar to the argument that women are less intelligent because their brains are smaller. What you suggest might be true to some degree, but probably not scientifically accepted.

You also claim: "Human brains are divided in 2 hemispheres. One side of the brain holds logic, verbal skills and linear thinking skills such as mathematics, and the other side holds creativity, emotions, non linear thinking skills." This was what we thought back in the 1970s, but has not at least most of this been falsified by more resent research?

I don%rsquot believe it%rsquos true that men cannot be emotional and logical at the same time. But as I have been awake all my life as an adult, I might not be the right person to judge.

I agree there is a difference which is rather similar to what you describe %ndash thus we probably cannot handle feelings as well (eg I would normally feel love or sexual excitement, but at least the higher self of a girl is able to feel them both at the same time) %ndash although I think the individual differences are more significant than the differences between men and women.

: 7. You cannot expect a girl not to be selfish, even if she appears as really unselfish. As her ego is focused on relations, it might be important for her to appear as if she did not think of herself first. But this is only as long as she considers this to be in her own best interest (which doesn%rsquot mean that it is); when it really matters to her she will most likely still put her own interests first.
I dunno what to make of this one. Motherhood usually involves self sacrifice, and having noticed the profound emotional and psychological changes in some female friends by the experience of giving birth, I would say that womens selfishness is more about knowing that you have to take care of yourself first or you won't be able to care for another. That is the sort of "enlightened selfishness" I reccommend.

- I don%rsquot think selfishness is enlightened only because it is basically about taking care about somebody else. Men become more selfish too, when they get a family to care fore. However, many people build their ego upon the belief that they are not selfish.

[Mystress]

: - The victory of feminism (which is probably greater in my country than anywhere else) does not prove so much about the tendency by individual women, as compared to men, to set goals and go for them. Instead you should ask questions such as what percentage of all women and what percentage of all men own their own business.

It is pretty high, actually. Canada is a bit socialist, and pro-active in getting single mothers employed and off the welfare roll, including offering educational training, business grants and other support. The welfare, pension and medicare system in Canada depends on the next generation growing up to be healthy, educated, productive taxpayers.

 Here, it is generally considered that women are getting promoted and getting ahead in business because a woman's co-operative, less hierarchical style is more effective for business in the information age of communication, specialization and multitasking.

 I know a lot of women who own their own business, and many who self employed. Lawyers, yoga teachers, freelance artists, musicians, Doctors... you name it.  

 Banks like womens businesses because they are statistically more likely to succeed. Not just because they are supported, but because women are more careful and less likely to go for the fancy office space and flashy leased car. Men tend to take big loans and want a huge enterprise right away, like a franchise or dealership wheras women tend to start small and build.
 My previous business partner, for example. I met him when his company was only a few months old, he contacted me to be an instructor.  Getting off the elevator and seeing the giant fresh flower display on an antique table on a persian rug in the hall,  and the view from the corner office made me think "I don't want to be paying for that!"  His business went broke and shut down but I am still here and growing.

Martha Stewart and Oprah come to mind... Exceptional people, certainly, but their media presence makes acceptance of women in charge of huge business empires seem normal.
 I read an article recently about a large trend towards successful women in business in India. With the typical Indian extended family structure they have relatives to mind the kids and the whole family in support of them building their huge companies.  

: I remember that once when I was about 15 years old there was a test at school, where we were asked which qualities we wanted the most for ourselves. We boys were somewhat astonished to se that so many girls wanted %ldquostrength%rdquo before anything else. It took a while until we understood that they didn%rsquot mean physical strength.

Yeah, I would have been one of them.
  What did the boys wish for?

: - Exceptional people always stick out, don%rsquot they? (By the way, didn%rsquot Cleopatra loose the war?)
Only the war with the romans. Nobody won a war with the romans. She held out longer than most.

: : 4. For girls, relations are often the most important thing. For boys they just happen while they are busy planning and doing other things.
: Women have a gene which is silent in men, which makes them able to see and understand relationships, society and human behavior better than men do. So women get more knowledge of the social impacts of their actions, and take it into consideration where men are blind.
: I believe Kundalini turns the gene back on in men but I am not a scientist to be able to prove it!

: - This might be true, but I doubt it has been scientifically proven.

That the gene exists and is switched off in boys, in untero has been scientifically proven. That Kundalini changes it back, no... very little about Kundalini has been researched.

My obervation is experiential. Famous enlightened people often are quite feminine in their social attitudes.  

: I think you need to go back to the brain gender lesson... men and women have different brains, women use the whole brain where men use only one side at a time. Thus, while it appears men are able to switch off emotions... it is really that a man cannot be emotional and logical at the same time. Statistically, most women who are murdered, (80%?) are murdered by their mate, the man in their lives. More men than women are in prison for a crime of passion... Because men use one side of the brain at a time, they are better able to compartmentalize or switch off their feelings and be singlemeinded, but if the feelings are overwhelming they are more likely to lose it because the divided brain is not as good at intepreting and understanding feelings.

: - Sorry, but I don't really know how to relate to that lesson, as most of this doesn%rsquot sound that scientific to me at all - although parts it might of course still be true. The idea that men use only one side of the brain at a time is although obviously false. Of course, you cannot really mean that!

: And the argument that the connection between the hemispheres is smaller in a male brain sounds very similar to the argument that women are less intelligent because their brains are smaller. What you suggest might be true to some degree, but probably not scientifically accepted.

: You also claim: "Human brains are divided in 2 hemispheres. One side of the brain holds logic, verbal skills and linear thinking skills such as mathematics, and the other side holds creativity, emotions, non linear thinking skills." This was what we thought back in the 1970s, but has not at least most of this been falsified by more resent research?

As I understand it, the invention of the MRI has validated a lot of the old theories, and there have been many recent social studies on how men and women cope differently with varying situations. It has been discovered that women have a language center on both sides of the brain... men don't.

 What I reference, is what has been validated in my personal experience.

  But, you are the scientist, not me! I have an ADD, not a Phd. Do some research, on both sides and share what you find. If my data is out of date, I'll change it.

  Blessings...  

: -  However, many people build their ego upon the belief that they are not selfish.

[juergen]

Edward, you devil! You're such a women-and men-knower.

best;

juergen

: Still, I do very well understand what you mean. I have always preferred men (or boys as I like to call them) as bosses at work. Why? Because boys are much easier to manipulate when playing with their egos. I can use both my skills and knowledge  I have about men, since I'm already a boy, and know how we function - and use my feminine/"gayish" tacticts because I'm touch with Samantha (I call the female part of my brain that)

: And when it comes to women, you can't do that. Generally they are much more intellectually challenging, and it's harder to use flattery to "achieve" something, because women don't have such  big egos as men do.

: Edward

[juergen]

: Thank you juergen and Edward! They are really interesting.

Thank you!

: (Actually, there seems to be some confusion between being egoistic and having an ego. A few months ago I visited an event where a therapist gave a lesson where he claimed that really small kids have big egos, because they only think of themselves. That didn%rsquot make any sense to me. Being unselfish can in many situations be the result of not have such a big ego. But on the other hand unselfish behaviour is probably much more often a trait of a rather big ego. And people with no ego (such as small kids) can often be much more selfish that people with big egos.)

In the context of FST "Ego" has, i think, a quite unique meaning, Mystress could also have titled it  "Tomato", but then there'd been a confusion about tomato, now there is a confusion about ego!

With a big ego, i associate  strong personality,  like John Lennon, at least someone has assigned once a big ego to him; but Lennon was probably enlightened to some degree, 'cause he wrote "All You Need Is Love". Like Mystress, other people have a right of editorial whim, so Freud had probably another definition, and Carl Jung again another; the grading of ego as rather good or rather baaad baaad seems also 5050(i.e.:whimsical);

There are so many books and Authors, and nearly i had said, one of them is Mystress with Her FST-text, but that's just what i'm not saying!

Because this course is all written and unwritten books in a nutshell for me, Her terminology a solid resource to start with.

Let's not distract ourselves with Freud and Jung and their felloships, since they're not reaching up to Her little toe!

Let's not get mislead by natural fem modesty.

Further, all categorizations of fem and male vary strongly with time and person and there is also an essence of the genders, but we won't find it by statistics of transient samples where the biggest hits are taken for "typical".
Own experiences of the soul and the twin soul seem to be more rewarding.

Nice erotic dreams to all!

juergen

[Vyana]

: - The victory of feminism (which is probably greater in my country than anywhere else) does not prove so much about the tendency by individual women, as compared to men, to set goals and go for them. Instead you should ask questions such as what percentage of all women and what percentage of all men own their own business.
It is pretty high, actually...

- I suppose so, but what about the rest of the world? And then again: it%rsquos not easy to know how many of the typical male or female traits are genetic or which depends such as interest and training. What we focus on grows here too.

: I remember that once when I was about 15 years old there was a test at school, where we were asked which qualities we wanted the most for ourselves. We boys were somewhat astonished to se that so many girls wanted %ldquostrength%rdquo before anything else. It took a while until we understood that they didn%rsquot mean physical strength.
Yeah, I would have been one of them.
What did the boys wish for?

- So, you really needed more strength? I am not sure what most of the boys wished for %ndash maybe strength too, but physical such. I wished for intelligence, and got it. A few years earlier I wished for God to prove his existence to me. He did, but I didn%rsquot understand that was it. So, it appears you get what you wish for.

- - - Nobody won a war with the romans. - - -

- A lot of people did, actually! If they had not, I suppose the romans would have been in charge of the world today.

: : 4. For girls, relations are often the most important thing. For boys they just happen while they are busy planning and doing other things.
: Women have a gene which is silent in men, which makes them able to see and understand relationships, society and human behavior better than men do. So women get more knowledge of the social impacts of their actions, and take it into consideration where men are blind.
: I believe Kundalini turns the gene back on in men but I am not a scientist to be able to prove it!
- - -
As I understand it, the invention of the MRI has validated a lot of the old theories, and there have been many recent social studies on how men and women cope differently with varying situations. It has been discovered that women have a language center on both sides of the brain... men don't.
What I reference, is what has been validated in my personal experience.
But, you are the scientist, not me! I have an ADD, not a Phd. Do some research, on both sides and share what you find. If my data is out of date, I'll change it.

- It seems an ADD might sometimes be better. I am not the right kind of scientist for this, but I will order some books and get back if I find something. It might take a while though. Research takes time, and I just got a new assignment, which might be big. What I wrote down in the first place was only my assumptions built on experience.

[Vyana]

%ldquoIn the context of FST "Ego" has, i think, a quite unique meaning,%rdquo

- I am not so sure of that. However, I am not sure, either, whether I have really understood the concept of ego. As I understand it, it%rsquos basically the same in at least those yogic traditions which are based on the so-called advaita philosophy (the philosophy of no-separation, due to which we are all already at the goal; we are already free and saved and part of the divine; all goals that could ever be set are already attained, we just need to acknowledge this). I would define ego as a scheme of interpretation, where we identify with our body, personal traits, perceptions, mental activity etc and believe that it is an entity of its own, a being separate from Goddess. Basically, this is a misconception caused by attachments. The scheme of interpretation, where Goddess is instead having a human experience is more accurate. %ldquoI%rdquo am not living %ldquomy%rdquo life, because there is not %ldquoI%rdquo, Goddess is living it. Still, to be able to live in this reality and act rationally as human beings we need an ego. But we need not necessary experience us as separate from Goddess, or at least we can be aware that we are at the same time one. I think the definitions used by Freud and Jung are related. Mystress%rsquo teachings are partly based on Jung%rsquos teachings, while most Indian teachings are somewhat surprisingly actually partly based on Freud.

%ldquoWith a big ego, i associate strong personality, like John Lennon, at least someone has assigned once a big ego to him; but Lennon was probably enlightened to some degree, 'cause he wrote "All You Need Is Love".%ldquo

- I don%rsquot think that a %ldquobig ego%rdquo in the spiritual sense is necessarily connected to a strong personality. Mystress has a really strong personality, but still probably less of an ego than any other person I have met. There are certainly also people with rather %ldquosmall%rdquo personalities but really big egos. Artists are really interesting although. I don%rsquot think John Lennons great personality came from his ego, but rather from being awake. It might be somewhat surprising, but I also believe that Paris Hilton is awake. I get the sense of shakti from her music. And one night, after I had listened to some of her songs, I had a vision of a blond lady with a brown haired lady in her company. They both came walking and lay down on the bed beside me. Then nothing more happened. It was as if they just wanted to rest beside me: or the blond lady wanted to; the other lady just seemed to follow her along. I thought it was a little bit strange and not until the next day I realised she looked like Paris Hilton.

I hope erotic dreams do not amount to %ldquospiritual rape%rdquo!

[juergen]

Vyana, your propositions of ego are interesting, but:
from the FST-text i conclude:

with ego, FST is not referring to the same like psychology or another system does; when ego is viewed as karmic crap this is not to say that psychologic ego is viewed as karmic crap: karmic crap is the definition of ego in FST; imagine a sandbox or something around each ego: there is no direct relation.

peace,

juergen

: %ldquoIn the context of FST "Ego" has, i think, a quite unique meaning,%rdquo

: - I am not so sure of that. However, I am not sure, either, whether I have really understood the concept of ego. As I understand it, it%rsquos basically the same in at least those yogic traditions which are based on the so-called advaita philosophy (the philosophy of no-separation, due to which we are all already at the goal; we are already free and saved and part of the divine; all goals that could ever be set are already attained, we just need to acknowledge this). I would define ego as a scheme of interpretation, where we identify with our body, personal traits, perceptions, mental activity etc and believe that it is an entity of its own, a being separate from Goddess. Basically, this is a misconception caused by attachments. The scheme of interpretation, where Goddess is instead having a human experience is more accurate. %ldquoI%rdquo am not living %ldquomy%rdquo life, because there is not %ldquoI%rdquo, Goddess is living it. Still, to be able to live in this reality and act rationally as human beings we need an ego. But we need not necessary experience us as separate from Goddess, or at least we can be aware that we are at the same time one. I think the definitions used by Freud and Jung are related. Mystress%rsquo teachings are partly based on Jung%rsquos teachings, while most Indian teachings are somewhat surprisingly actually partly based on Freud.

: %ldquoWith a big ego, i associate strong personality, like John Lennon, at least someone has assigned once a big ego to him; but Lennon was probably enlightened to some degree, 'cause he wrote "All You Need Is Love".%ldquo

: - I don%rsquot think that a %ldquobig ego%rdquo in the spiritual sense is necessarily connected to a strong personality. Mystress has a really strong personality, but still probably less of an ego than any other person I have met. There are certainly also people with rather %ldquosmall%rdquo personalities but really big egos. Artists are really interesting although. I don%rsquot think John Lennons great personality came from his ego, but rather from being awake. It might be somewhat surprising, but I also believe that Paris Hilton is awake. I get the sense of shakti from her music. And one night, after I had listened to some of her songs, I had a vision of a blond lady with a brown haired lady in her company. They both came walking and lay down on the bed beside me. Then nothing more happened. It was as if they just wanted to rest beside me: or the blond lady wanted to; the other lady just seemed to follow her along. I thought it was a little bit strange and not until the next day I realised she looked like Paris Hilton.

: I hope erotic dreams do not amount to %ldquospiritual rape%rdquo!

[Vyana]

This sure is an interesting discussion!

"when ego is viewed as karmic crap this is not to say that psychologic ego is viewed as karmic crap"

- I am not sure that this way reasoning is valid. Now, I don%rsquot mean what you say expressly, but what you suggest, namely that psychological ego is accepted as something else than karmic crap. In principle we have to do with different paradigms of thinking and to the extent that psychological ego actually is something else than %ldquoyogic ego%rdquo (at least Jung has written about kundalini in a way that indicates that he agreed to the yogic definition of ego) I doubt it even exist as a concept in yogic philosophy. But if so; that does not indicate that it is accepted as something else than karmic crap, but only that it is not accepted at all.

"karmic crap is the definition of ego in FST"

- I don%rsquot agree with you here. Ego might be made of karmic crap, but something has to be added to that information. Saying that ego is karmic crap is not much of a definition. It%rsquos more like saying that apples are atoms. It sure is true, but it still doesn%rsquot distinguish apples from any other object of matter. So, I think we have to add something to distinguish ego from other karmic crap.