Wells

.

So back into the caves and dying with an average age of thirty in agony because of an infection.

In other words: You believe in oppression of males. O.k. but then also enough with the misandry card.

Sorry, your ponies look to me like castrates who are happy because they never had to deal with broads and stuff.

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

I understand. Well, depth depends on the individual understanding. What for some individuals is just a part of a nursery rhyme, is for other individuals the concept that has the potential to lead them to enlightenment...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Jigme Lingpa in 'Distinguishing The Three Essential Points of Dzogchen' states: "The ālaya [kun gzhi] is the basis of all samsara and nirvana; It is not unlike muddy water. [In it], because of confusion led by latent ignorance, The brightness of wisdom [ye shes] and vidyā [rig pa] has become hidden." He continues: "Those who, not understanding this, mistake the ālaya [kun gzhi] for the dharmakāya, are like blind men wandering in the desert without a guide. Because of their confusion about the vital points of the basis and result, they have come to a standstill on the path that accomplishes buddhahood in one lifetime."

Enlightenment is simple but not that simple. Seeing the void, yes, but seeing the void as empty is wrong, seeing the void as not empty is right. According to Jigme Lingpa, the space of your mind normally is like muddy water. It has to become like clear water.

Concentration? Focus? Psychokinesis? Sounds to me as if you could find in the yoga sutras what you are looking for...

Regarding what you wrote, what I understand is that you are rooted deeply in the egotistic worldview of dualistic grasping in all its coarse and subtle, concrete and abstract aspects and layers.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/A - Tibetan Buddhism/Authors/Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche/Approaching the Guru/Approaching the Guru.htm "Putting the Guru to the Test The great vidyadhara Jigme Lingpa said that it is very important to analyze the guru first. As I said before, we are naturally very insecure people. Because of this we are easy prey. We make all sorts of mistakes that are difficult to clear up later on. Before you start to follow a guru, you should have a good understanding of the dharma. I don’t mean that you have to understand it completely, but at least you should have some understanding. You should analyze, and you should be skeptical and critical. Perhaps you should argue, and try to find fault by using logic and reflection. But while you are doing this, you should not have the journalist’s approach of looking for faults. The aim here is to find the path, not to find faults. So, when you study Buddhism, you should try to see whether this path suits you or not, whether this path makes sense or not. This is very important. Here’s an example. Let’s say that we want to go to New York, and we are hiring a guide. We need to have at least some idea where New York is. To take a guide without knowing whether New York is in the east, south or west is what I call the “inspirational disease.” It’s not enough just to find the guide attractive—to like the way he looks, talks and behaves. You should have at least some knowledge where New York is, so that if in the middle of the trip he begins to act a little funny, you feel okay because you know that you are heading in the right direction. He may lead you through strange or rough roads, but that doesn’t matter if you know you are heading in the right direction. On the other hand, if you don’t know the way at all, you are obliged to place all your trust in this one guide who claims that he can do anything. Maybe if you have lots of merit, you might accidentally find an authentic guide and actually reach New York. But if I were you I would not trust this kind of accidental success all the way. It is good to analyze the path first, and then you can have one or a hundred or thousands of gurus if you like."

That applies to every person who is not a buddha, it's just a matter of degree and relativity.

What happened is sex between adults in mutual agreement. The women who wanted to have sex with him followed his pick-up line, those who didn't want to have sex with him refused and eventually leaved him. He did not rape the women and he did not threaten them physically to force them to have sex with him, therefore there are no victims. Just by watching the videos it is clear to everybody that this guy is like a sheik building up a harem of young girls for his sexual advantage. So only an adult person in willful ignorance or mentally impaired would not understand what's going on there. Obviously they all played along for some time and were happy or at least ok with what's going on. Obviously he still has female followers who are happy with the situation and with playing their role. They get a boost for their ego as they have the attention of and have sex with an authority figure, he gets a boost for his ego as he is admired by and has sex with young women. Only mentally impaired women could claim rightfully to have been victims in that situation.