Do men and women awaken equally ?

[theleelajoker]

54 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It might be an attempt to bridge the gap, rather than further seperate. If real understanding is the aim. 

Depends on if the enquiry is genuinely open, and no one attempts to deny anyone elses view. 

You could look at it in a similar way as the solipsism threads everywhere 🤪

I suppose I do not feel so identified with masculine or feminine in a strong way. I just am. So I do not take offence. 

If I see someone genuinely trying to elevate one polarity over another I normally call it out.

Do you see that happening here? 

I haven't seen a lot of the no-self, I am more awakened blah blah as much around here so much. Still sometimes happens. 

As written above, the difference is IMO description oriented vs. action oriented. Separation instead of commonality.

Imagine all the time and energy spent to describe reality is put into experimental and experimental action. And focus on first person, direct experience instead of generalization and categorization.

Just take your own estimate how much content falls into which category, and how it could look instead. And what influence it could have.

Edited 10 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Alexop]

@theleelajoker generalizations and categorizations are important in order to understand how everything functions. 

Wait until your survival gets affected by the lack of descriptive knowledge.

Edited 9 hours ago by Alexop

[Xonas Pitfall]

10 hours ago, Joshe said:

And you can't just take cultural norms for granted. Cultural norms also reflect deep aspects of feminine needs and desires. Culturally women are steered away from technical science because that is not suitable for most women. That is not what they want or need. Truth-seeking is less of a feminine need. You will notice that the women who do truth-seeking are more masculine for it. They are not your typical girly girl.

Just for fun. Would you make the same argument for Black men versus White men, or Asian men versus White men, or Arab men, or any men from other oppressed regions to White men?

Quote

And you can’t just take cultural norms for granted. Cultural norms also reflect deep aspects of black community needs and desires. Culturally, Black people are said to be steered away from technical science because that is not considered suitable for most members of the group. That is not what they are believed to want or need. Truth-seeking is described as less of a black cultural priority. You will notice, according to this view, that Black individuals who engage in truth-seeking are seen as deviating from the cultural norm. They are not viewed as your typical gangster chain-wearing popular street-culture stereotypes black person. Rather, they present in ways more commonly associated with white elite academic environments and traditionally White professional spaces.

Who do you think made it this way? Is it really their “nature,” or is it oppression? How can you claim that the group responsible for creating this inequality in the first place is more prone to enlightenment than the oppressed group?

Edited 8 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Here's an interesting question. Who are more crime oriented, males or females? 

Violent crime certainly males. Probably other crime too because males are the breadwinners. Women have less need to do crime.

Edited 8 hours ago by Leo Gura

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Alexop said:

@theleelajoker generalizations and categorizations are important in order to understand how everything functions. 

Wait until your survival gets affected by the lack of descriptive knowledge.

My survival is doing fine. Thanks for your care. 

Using your language: Wait until your happiness get affected by the constant need to categorize and generalize.

See what happens when you drop the believe that this is the appropriate method to understand how "everything works". IME, just being aware is enough to recognize the trans- and interpersonal aspects of reality, its interconnectivity and the value and the danger of projections. 

Generalizations and categorizations have their use, but it's crucial to understand their appropriate use and their limitations. Two quotes come to mind.

"If the only thing you have is a hammer, then everything looks like nail."

"If you name me, you negate me. You negate all the things I could possibly be"

[Raze]

 60% of those who awaken are men 

[Twentyfirst]

10 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Answering as a women: high tolerance.

I do not fit anyones expections. And people are uncomfortable if they cannot easily slap a label on you and treat you from a pre-set paradigm. If you poke holes in someone's understanding of the world merely with your presence, you are way less likely to be accepted. Let alone understood.

This is a classic woman blunder. You think you have an ability to be isolated but thats just from a woman's point of view. If you knew what "male isolation" was like you would see you have barely any tolerance for it.

I am sure you have high tolerance for it as a woman but it's sort of like the woman that's best in the world at tolerating loneliness is still worse at it than the man who is worst in the world at tolerating loneliness. I know you answered "as a woman" but it would be challenging for a woman to know what is a low or high tolerance because women don't really have that struggle built into them, it's foreign. Even if gender roles "break down" it will still be foreign, probably forever.

8 hours ago, Salvijus said:

There will only be more men in Zen because discipline, austerities, isolation and mental masturbation are all masculine forms of spirituality. Females practice spiritually in a totally different way.

Holistic places that incorporate both masculine and feminine such as Isha foundation, Art of living, Osho communities and even vipassana organization (which is a form of zen) have more female participants actually than male. 

Religion used to be a form of escape from women and a way to separate the genders living spaces. Because the masculine uses nothingness as a pleasure when the feminine uses fullness as a pleasure. Essentially, women talk a lot and men can't be bothered so they needed a man cave to have a short break and retreat before interacting with the feminine again.

That's why as soon you get home from work your woman who was waiting all day for you will just babble endlessly about inconsequential things but all you want to do is decompress and stay silent. You actually will want to talk to your woman but only after an hour of two of that decompressing and doing nothing after a long day of work. If a woman comes back from work she still wants to babble right as she gets home, so it's mostly that the man needs to have a costume shift from work personality to home personality and doing nothing is a way to change the costume, not about having a long day at work that causes a needs for rest.

This is traditionally why Religion was created by men and for men. It was the original man cave. I wouldn't be surprised if awakening was just an excuse to get away and then the seeker realized later that it was actually important. I think every man knows if he spends too much time with his woman it's actually counter productive and could damage the relationship. I think woman are the ones who latch on more and they will take as much time as they can get. Religion is perfect. It's mysterious, mystical, metaphorical, and confusing to keep people out. Obviously even more separation was created between the genders in religion spaces because of lust.

Women today call this sexism and control, that religion was a tool to enslave women, uhh maybe in some instances but definitely not all. Best to have all 3 spaces today, male/female/shared, then let people choose what they want without having to compromise.

Edited 8 hours ago by Twentyfirst

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 hour ago, Alexop said:

@theleelajoker generalizations and categorizations are important in order to understand how everything functions. 

Wait until your survival gets affected by the lack of descriptive knowledge.

This is fine, but the question is: how much do you generalize? If you stick to that kind of thinking, then Black people would only be seen as slaves and inferior. Women would still be considered incapable of work or going to university, which they have more than proven wrong. You could add more stereotypes too: people with OCD or other mental illnesses would all be labelled as useless, even though plenty of them are genuinely talented, certain ethnic groups being labeled lazy or violent, immigrants assumed to be incapable of entrepreneurship and only suited for hard manual labor, and so on.

Acknowledging patterns in reality matters, and pretending differences never exist is dishonest. At the same time, forcing reality into rigid narratives is just as dangerous. When expectations are built on stereotypes, they shape behavior, limit opportunity, and create self-fulfilling prophecies. The challenge is not to deny reality, but to stay flexible enough to let reality correct our assumptions instead of bending people to fit them.

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

(...)

At the same time, forcing reality into rigid narratives is just as dangerous. When expectations are built on stereotypes, they shape behavior, limit opportunity, and create self-fulfilling prophecies. The challenge is not to deny reality, but to stay flexible enough to let reality correct our assumptions instead of bending people to fit them.

Well said IMO.

Re bold: The problem IME is that this effect is FAR greater then anything people typically can imagine.

I professional teach about these effects, I do meditation retreats, fasting, I use psychedelics for re-programming (see Lilly's metaprogramming) I pay conscious attention to it etc etc and again and again every year I surprise myself: because the deeper I go into the rabbit hole, the more layers of these effects I uncover for myself. And with every layer I loose, I see it more in others. 

Some people are interested, attentive and listening and - they immediately recognize these effects when pointed out. And they gain freedom, lightness and the flexibility you talk about.

Others are too proud, too scared, too insecure ("I know this, I am aware of this, no it's not a projection it's reality etc") and they get stuck in a loop. It subconsciously became their identity.

It's their choice, their life. Problem is that they propagate their subjectively filtered reality as "truth" and thus potentially create for others that pick up parts of that subjective believe system.

Edited 6 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Twentyfirst

3 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

This is a classic woman blunder. You think you have an ability to be isolated but thats just from a woman's point of view. If you knew what "male isolation" was like you would see you have barely any tolerance for it.

I am sure you have high tolerance for it as a woman but it's sort of like the woman that's best in the world at tolerating loneliness is still worse at it than the man who is worst in the world at tolerating loneliness. I know you answered "as a woman" but it would be challenging for a woman to know what is a low or high tolerance because women don't really have that struggle built into them, it's foreign. Even if gender roles "break down" it will still be foreign, probably forever.

What are you even talking about.

I'm not talking about mens vs women's loneliness. I even raised it was from a female perspective. Stop making it men vs women. 

I don't run around attempting to invalidate mens issues and suffering. So neither should you regarding anything women experience.

Thanks. 

[AerisVahnEphelia]

it's easy to know, if attachment to anything is serious : not awakened

if attachment to things is part of the game of life : enlightned.

 

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Twentyfirst

What are you even talking about.

I'm not talking about mens vs women's loneliness. I even raised it was from a female perspective. Stop making it men vs women. 

I don't run around attempting to invalidate mens issues and suffering. So neither should you regarding anything women experience.

Thanks. 

Your so close minded lol

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

As written above, the difference is IMO description oriented vs. action oriented. Separation instead of commonality.

Imagine all the time and energy spent to describe reality is put into experimental and experimental action. And focus on first person, direct experience instead of generalization and categorization.

Just take your own estimate how much content falls into which category, and how it could look instead. And what influence it could have.

Can you define what you mean by 'action oriented' and 'description oriented'?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

16 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Your so close minded lol

You're*

[theleelajoker]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Can you define what you mean by 'action oriented' and 'description oriented'?

 

Description oriented: you make a video about topic XYZ and describe with words "how things (supposedly) work". You go an a forum and describe what "this and that is" and "how the world is" and what "insights" you got. You tell others how the world is, how you see it. 

The main goal is to express or seek a certain combination of words that satisfy your desire to be right, to confirm your reality tunnel that is built by language.  And / or - if there is less attachment - goal is to satisfy your more simple desire to put reality into a concept (examples are "men are this, women are that", "reality is this, and it's not that", "the right way to do is X and not Z", "the causality is Z and not X etc etc")

Which can be fine as long as it is a tool towards action or if you face real risks. It's crucial to understand how to build a bridge that carries your weight e.g .

But in most cases the discussion is about psychological themes and psychological risk only. And thus it becomes mental masturbation.

You're happy when a certain combination of words are expressed ("it is like that" "you are right, it's ABC") or you are pissed if your reality tunnel was not confirmed. As said before, it becomes mainly about creating a mental prison of categories and generalization and creating separation. That's what language mainly is.

By putting it into words, concepts etc you get a feeling of understanding, which potentially gives you an illusion of control. Why? Because your afraid to just go out and face the psychological risk.  Or because you mistake words and thoughts for the real thing, the experience itself. Pathological thinking instead of doing and being. 

Action oriented:

My statement was: "Imagine all the time and energy spent to describe reality is put into experimental and experiential action ?

Simple question: can the words I am expressing / seeking be replaced by action and direct experience?

• You can think "oh what a wonderful day". Or you stop that thought and put attention on the sun in your face, the smell of leaves and the wind on your skin 
• You describe insights about "how life works" or you stop that thought go out and do stuff, experiencing how life works 
• You can discuss how women and men are or you test your hypothesis by real life interactions 
• You can ask "how to approach men/ women" or just do it 
• You can discuss why you got rejected or why you had success in human interactions or you stop doing that and just continue living without seeking a concept that explains your experience 

Thinking is like grades in school or certificates. It's supposed to be a tool for learning and signaling. But it became a purpose in itself. I have seen countless examples where people just focus in the grade/certificate and the development, the learning itself becomes the second priority. Same with language, words, concepts etc etc..it does often not enhance action and experience, it inhibits or even replaces it. 

TLDR: are you defining reality with words or are you experiencing it beyond words?

 

Edited 2 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Xonas Pitfall]

6 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

Religion used to be a form of escape from women and a way to separate the genders living spaces. Because the masculine uses nothingness as a pleasure when the feminine uses fullness as a pleasure. Essentially, women talk a lot and men can't be bothered so they needed a man cave to have a short break and retreat before interacting with the feminine again.

Hey, I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen or heard this idea before. Do you have any reputable sources or historical references for this? It seems incorrect. Most religious practices used gender segregation because they believed it reduced distraction and upheld modesty in prayer, not to create a male retreat away from women’s speech or presence as a form of personal escape. There is also a long history of beliefs that women were not capable of logical thought or philosophy, which led religion to separate them. This belief was a social construct of the time, similar to slavery, not a God-given truth.

In general:

• Religion emerges in early societies as a way to explain nature, enforce norms, create group cohesion, and legitimize power.
• Gender segregation in religion is better explained by patriarchy, inheritance systems, modesty norms, and control of reproduction, not male burnout from women.
• Most religious spaces were actually labor-intensive and communal, not quiet retreats.

To be honest, most of the things you said in that post seem heavily unsupported scientifically and historically. Please be careful before believing such claims.

Quote

That's why as soon you get home from work your woman who was waiting all day for you will just babble endlessly about inconsequential things but all you want to do is decompress and stay silent.

Just as a fun remark (not saying this is grounded in truth at all): women probably wanted their own religious spaces too, to “babble” all day with their girlfriends, but men called them witches, heretics, eldritch spawns of evil, and then burned them at the stake, so, oh well… LOL. 

Jokes aside, I find comments like this really childish. Why are you in a marriage with someone you cannot even bear to listen to? There is nothing cool or masculine about marrying someone while refusing to indulge their excitement about things that matter to them. That is not stoic masculinity. That is just being an inconsiderate asshole.

It sounds less like love and more like marrying someone to do house labor, raise children, and maintain a “status, picture-perfect family,” all on her effort, while you go off to “practice religion with the homies.” What kind of love is that supposed to be?

Why are you even in this marriage to begin with? Marriage is a two-way choice and a two-way responsibility. If you cannot engage with your partner as a full human being, the real question is why you chose to be in this marriage at all.

Edited 2 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Xonas Pitfall]

4 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

I professional teach about these effects, I do meditation retreats, fasting, I use psychedelics for re-programming (see Lilly's metaprogramming) I pay conscious attention to it etc etc and again and again every year I surprise myself: because the deeper I go into the rabbit hole, the more layers of these effects I uncover for myself. And with every layer I loose, I see it more in others. 

Exactly! I see this in myself as well, and I’m actively trying to break down and properly deconstruct my own biases. I think this is also why it can be disappointing to see Leo make such overt, unprompted, and poorly reasoned arguments in this area of masculinity and femininity. He has a very intelligent open mind, but you can clearly see the influence of a “masculine aesthetic” bias. I have no issue if the “masculine” perspective is, so to speak, more truthful, but the arguments presented are, frankly, quite shallow and not well thought through or logically persuasive to take as truth.

Quote

"My purpose now is to be an exemplar of Truth on Earth for mankind. To show a truthless mankind what commitment to Truth looks like. It is such a profound purpose that its frightening. To be the living embodiment of Truth. To be Truth incarnate. I am nowhere close to actualizing that. And I already know that in the future it will need to evolve even further to also include the embodiment of Love. Because a Truth without Love isn't true.

My life purpose is to be a conduit for Infinite Intelligence on Earth. I have no idea how I'm going to do it. I am not conscious enough. I am not true enough. I don't not-know enough."

😓. . .

[theleelajoker]

9 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Exactly! I see this in myself as well, and I’m actively trying to break down and properly deconstruct my own biases. I think this is also why it can be disappointing to see Leo make such overt, unprompted, and poorly reasoned arguments in this area of masculinity and femininity. He has a very intelligent open mind, but you can clearly see the influence of a “masculine aesthetic” bias. I have no issue if the “masculine” perspective is, so to speak, more truthful, but the arguments presented are, frankly, quite shallow and not well thought through or logically persuasive to take as truth.

😓. . .

This gender stuff seem to be a core believe of his identity. These core pillars die hard.

More open minded social interaction especially with women might change his mind, but for this one would need to interact IRL and expose oneself to certain situations that have been avoided.

How practical it is that "superior cognitive thinker" traditionally live isolated, isn't it? 

Edited 2 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Xonas Pitfall]

2 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

This gender stuff seem to be a core believe of his identity. These core pillars die hard.

More open minded social interaction especially with women might change his mind, but for this one would need to interact IRL. How practical it is that "superior cognitive thinker" live isolated, isn't it?

That's it. The hot witch girlfriend seductress needs to come back with her love potions to Leo’s lap (the TO-BE exemplar of Truth on Earth for mankind) ASAP.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@theleelajoker Thank you! Concept vs direct experience is how I loosely understand this - if I am correct?

I do notice your definition for 'Description Oriented' includes:

Quote

The main goal is to express or seek a certain combination of words that satisfy your desire to be right,

Which would be additional context I was missing. Egoic interference. Cheers