ZenDirtZenDust Objectifies Women and Bodhisattvas

*Le Sigh*

It’s not that I don’t love this site, I do.  I mean it addresses the issue of the female image in our media soaked culture and its blog title “The Hathor Legacy”, I think is a take-off of Hastur (a Great Old One from the Cthulhu Mythos).

Either way, they linked to this post I did on Esoteric Buddhist practice of visualization and I am called this for it.

Hi, your name is stupid fool, and you’ve managed to completely objectify a set of deities. W00T!

So, I don’t mind being called a stupid fool but I am not the one that created these practices (if you took the time to read the post and comments you may have learned something).  I was just discussing them in a rather tongue-in-cheek fashion.  If you find them so disturbing to call me names then at least have the common courtesy to post a comment here explaining it…I am rarely if ever rude to people who disagree with my posts.

Although I did leave a comment over there that objectifies the Cthulhu Mythos so I hope that I don’t get some cultists hate mail.

Cheers,

John

Update!

Kyle over at Reformed Buddhist post this response!  Check it out.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “ZenDirtZenDust Objectifies Women and Bodhisattvas

  1. Yes, wow!

    This incident raises a larger question for me. As a traveler on the path, how is one to respond to such things? Do you set the record straight as you doing here? Do you simply not respond? . . .

    My stance so far, has been to ignore such aggressive, misguided comments . . . letting them die on their own.

    Now, may you be at peace . . .

    Deep bow,

    marguerite

    • I don’t like ignoring and I also don’t like foaming at the mouth. A good “Middle Way” is to simple ask for engagement and if someone wants to talk about it then great…if not then great as well.

      Incedently, I probably cut any possibility of conversation by the comment I left over there. It was silly and meant in good-fun but probably conducive to dialogue.

      Cheers and thanks for commenting,

      John

  2. Both sides of the argument have some merit, it seems, depending upon perspective.

    Having read John’s blog for quite some time I am familiar with his intentions, sense of humor etc. so found little of offense in his and others comments on the post.

    Were I not aware of those things however there are points that could be construed as objectification.

    Context, understanding and depth are all relevant to forming an opinion.

    • Agreed. And I can see how someone would skim over the post, read the title and see the picture of Green Tara and jump to that conclusion. However, I would expect that some comment would be made on my blog to address it.

      I take a little offense at the name-calling (not too much, mind you, it does make me giggle a bit) and would prefer a conversation. Also I am getting alot of traffic from that site and no-one is even willing to throw something into the comments?

      Perhaps I should put up a disclaimer…

      As an aside, NellaLou. I am sure that if I insulted you in some way, you would let me hear it!

      Cheers,

      John

      • You are accused of being an Orientalist, in the sense of the word used by Edward Said, as well apparently in further comments. There have been many critiques of Said’s work (from many quarters) over the years and many refinements of his theories.

        The type of commentary on that particular website tends towards the blunt force, superficial, judgmental, self-righteous, non-relational, opinion-with-a-vengeance style. Dialogue is irrelevant to politically-correct posturing that appeals to the most self-satisfied of emotions. There are a sub-section of activists and others that find their gratification in ego-building via pseudo-political opinion and cherry-picking culture and it’s manifestations and inviting others to congratulate them on their display of a smorgasbord of derision. Pontification is the means of the day in that manner of righteous exhibitionism.

        It’s all about creating a spectacle. It ceases to be about attention to the issues but attention to the speaker.

        I used to be one of them so I know where it goes. It’s pretty much out of my system now in favor of something a little more thoughtful and effective and a little less rage-induced and damaging. Though I do keep a high horse handy in case I need to get out of town in a hurry.

        • Ah! I am so not an Orientalist but I may have to look up that specific definition.

          Either way, thanks for the info NellaLou! I appreciate it. I suppose no one is going to come out and yell at me…

          …whatever will my ego do. Maybe eat a sandwich.

          Cheers,

          John

  3. I won’t go into what us heathens would do in this situation (does the phrase “Blood Eagle” mean anything).

    Actually, our approach would probably be similar to the Buddhists; take the high road, man. Calling this poster out only draws unnecessary attention to the post and its claims. As it stands, the post is completely ambiguous with regard to the specifics of the accusations, so let you readership follow the link and be as confused as you are. Keep your chin up!!

    I too prefer “He Who Shall Not Be Named.”

    • Ai! Ai! Too late…I am already conversing. Nicely. I think one of the main aspects of applied Buddhist practice is the ability to see through someone’s else’s eyes (also known as compassion or karuna). That way you can approach a situation without the blood boil (which I am still all to prone to especially in a online forum).

      Drinks later…..?

    • Uh, just found your comment on the “The Hathor Legacy” website. Yeah, I’d say a constructive dialogue is pretty much academic at this point. Well played, sir!

  4. Wow. Off line for two days and I miss all the fun. You showed more mercy than I would have, Jack. Took a look at the site. I don’t even get the point of it. Inarticulate.

    I guess I get confused easily. So what if you – or anyone – objectifies women. Women objectify men (or maybe I was listening to the Righteous Brothers’ too much on the way here). If I think so, I ask first, slug later.

    Maybe I’m just getting old… 😦

    PS: I search around but didn’t find your comment.

    • They may have removed it. I don’t know. We had a nice discussion over there. I like to be notified first before being called names, if possible.

      Or even better, post a comment asking about my intentions or letting me know what you think. Everone that comments over here is spoken to with respect, even when we disagree.

      I may have just been a bit moody but some explaination as too why it was objectifying would have been well-received. As it stood, I was called a “stupid fool” and followed up by a “woot”.

      I’m over it now! I do agree with the “ask first, slug later” mentality though. Even when I call someone out, I try to do so nicely to gauge the reaction and see how polite criticism is received before I throw out the insults and “woots”!

      Cheers,

      John

Comments are closed.