Aaron

I don't find these pictures funny, they're just humiliating someone in a bad situation. Really poor taste in my opinion. Aaron

Wow... so when I said we should do away with all religions I was right? hehehe... just joking. This really is an important chapter, especially for those that miss this message in the TTC (it is there, but not so obtuse). I'm not sure you can make it any simpler than Walker did. I really think he gets to the gist of it. Aaron

Actually no... I went to great lengths to differentiate between the two types of compassion that were being discussed, the low virtue of compassion, derived from morality and cultural norms, and the high virtue of compassion derived from Te. No use going on, since you've moved on to how Christianity is a hoax that keeps people from understanding Buddhism and compassionate people are meek and unawakened (I guess anyone who gives someone else help is apparently unawakened, since if you're awakened you're obviously beyond the all that), I like Lerner's response. He hit it on the nail and said pretty much what Lao Tzu said. Help those in need. The more you help others, the more you help yourself. I have a hard time understanding how you can't see the merit in this. I'm wondering what you've taught your children regarding compassion? If their friend falls down and breaks his ankle, do they run and get help for them or wait for enlightenment to come so they can really help their friend? Aaron

VMarco, Are you reading what I post? I said that there are numerous definitions of compassion and that the problem seemed to be that you felt there was only one definition. If you're not going to even pay attention to what I'm actually saying, then there is no reason to continue to have this conversation. I might as well be talking to door. Also do you know I've seen you post that Chogyam Trungpa quote at least five times, and I still don't believe you understand what he's saying. If I may, I'd like to offer you my own opinion regarding that quote, perhaps you'll agree, perhaps not. What (I believe) Chogyam Trungpa is saying in this quote is that compassion, true compassion, is immediate, a response not born out of value judgments or morality, but rather you behave compassionately to everyone regardless. Also it's important not to add a metaphoric quality to "light" that isn't intended. Light in this instance is a metaphor for the intention derived from an understanding of dependent origination. To put this in a Taoist context, Lao Tzu says essentially the same thing when he says (to paraphrase), a sage treats all things like straw dogs and that the sage shows mercy to those that deserve it and to those that don't. As I said earlier, and you seem to choose to ignore, the ideas you are mentioning are neither new or revolutionary, rather they are the tried and true statements that have been encouraged by nearly every religious figure with even the slightest merit. You're changing the vocabulary, but not the idea. I would request that you take the time to read what I say and respond to my actual comments, rather than create a fictitious conversation that has no bearing on the discussion at hand. Aaron P.S. You may believe that I missed the games you're playing, but I'm very aware of your intent. I would suggest that trying to push people's buttons isn't necessarily compassionate,

Hello VMarco, I think you're missing some valuable points, or ignoring them. Semantics seem to be involved in this swashbuckling of wits, in this case you're stating that there is only one definition or form of compassion, the one that arises from an understanding of dependent origination, I am stating that there is a form of compassion that arises from dependent origination, emptiness, oneness experience, or whatever you want to call enlightenment these days, but also a form that arises from the senses, and that practicing either is virtuous, hence the first is a high virtue (arises as te) the second a low virtue (arises from humanity, ideology, and justice). In the long run it is much better to abandon the latter and find sustenance in the former. However, the eightfold path (something you chose not to address) is a clear indication that there is a necessity for "faking it until you make it". However my point still stands, I claim that there is a higher virtue of compassion, but I cannot prove its existence, for it is nothing that the senses can see, smell, hear, taste, or touch, but when it arises we know it is there, even without knowing what it is, for it moves the deepest emotions within us. Aaron

Hello VMarco, The first thing I should point out, for the sake of compassion and non-competition, is that you should probably let this argument go, because there is no way for you to win, since everything you're advocating is simply conjecture and subjective. Without a valid substantive way to prove that your views on compassion are real, there is no way to support your argument other than repeating the same thing over and over hoping people will finally get tired and quit arguing with you. With that said, I will proceed by clarifying some points, first, Lao Tzu never advocated compassion in a way that is even remotely close to your description, not in the Tao Te Ching, nor the Hua Hu Ching. Compassion in Lao Tzu's eyes was very much an act perpetrated out of empathy for others, and that did not arise from "emptiness" (at least not as you apparently observe it), but rather one's understanding of their connection to each other. If you want to know where to find this, well it's every other chapter of the Tao Te Ching and Hua Hu Ching. You have also misquoted me and taken what I've said out of context, for example, I have said that there is a higher virtue of compassion and a lower virtue of compassion, and that experiencing and practicing the higher virtue of compassion stems from understanding the fundamental experiential enlightenment or oneness experience. In fact the very people you post say the same thing, and all of them would agree with what I said in regard to the notion that practicing compassion without awareness of x, y, or z is pointless is incorrect and a "cop out". In fact the Eightfold Path works along the premise that one should fake it until he makes it. Of course, since I'm a nobody on a forum, I'm obviously wrong. Apparently the only way to say something correct is to have been published and accepted by the masses as a guru. I've yet to be published and I certainly never want to be a guru, so my opinion, at least by your standards, will not matter in the long run. With that said, I would suggest that you stop justifying inaction by claiming ignorance, because I am going to tell you exactly what every other religious figure that has any merit or even vague sense of enlightenment has said, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If you can do this, then you can practice compassion as it arises from emptiness. Aaron

Hello VMarco, I disagree with much of what you said, not only from a Buddhist viewpoint, but also a Taoist viewpoint. First. I get a distinct impression that people who say that compassion cannot be realized without first realizing x,y, or z, are doing so because it's a cop-out for them and their followers. It's alright that you're not behaving in a compassionate way, because until you realize x, y, or z, you'll never really understand compassion. I do think a full realization of compassion only comes when one understands the nature of reality, but this isn't only achieved through one path, but various paths, in fact it's the large print that changes, not the small print. As I've said many times before, when you search for enlightenment through a tradition, then when you receive enlightenment, you will use that traditions stance to explain it, but overall enlightenment is the same experience, whether you're christian, buddhist, taoist, or muslim. Enlightenment does not preclude that one will act in a compassionate way either, we can examine the actions of many "enlightened" people and gather enough understanding to realize that enlightenment is simply an awareness of who and what we are in the grand scheme of things. In fact enlightened people tend to be more voracious about learning other traditions and paths than those who are not, if only because they understand on an innate level the similarities far outweigh the differences. Keeping this in mind, then we can assume, that for this discussion, compassion as it's being talked about by Lao Tzu is not necessarily dualistic, or non-dualistic, but the act of compassion, not only feeling empathy for others, but acting on that empathy. The erroneous belief that one must become like a Vulcan when they've achieved enlightenment is quite funny to me, because I've met enlightened monks before and they never seemed pretentious or lacking in empathy, one was even fond of making jokes, horribly awkward and silly jokes. In fact they tend to connect with people quite quickly and quite powerfully, even to those who might not be aware of their "enlightened" status. We should never preclude the necessity of compassion in our life by stating that it is worthless without understanding x, y, or z. If you need evidence, go to any soup kitchen or shelter in any winter state and you'll see why. The notion that compassion should stem or be the product of much higher realization is suddenly shot down and shown to be the complete fabrication of the religious elite, an attempt to lay claim to an act in order to reduce the value placed on that act by the followers. The followers will no longer hold James, who selflessly searches for donations and feeds the hungry in esteem, but rather the man sitting in the upper room who is warm and cozy drinking a cup of tea preaching about how futile John's act really is. So I do agree to an extent, the welcoming bit is a very astute explanation, for it is only by welcoming the chance to be compassionate, by receiving it, not as a chore, but an opportunity to do something beneficial that we begin to understand the highest virtue that exists in compassion, but to discount the lower virtuous act, the compassionate act done out religious obligation, is pointless and a bit dogmatic, especially to the man who is hungry waiting for food. In the end we should strive to be compassionate because our heart compels us to do so, but until that time there is nothing wrong with practicing compassion as a purely obligatory act to ward off bad karma or achieve salvation. That's my two-cents anyways. Aaron

Just bumping the topic. I'm going to start the second treasure tomorrow, wanted everyone to get the chance to respond to this treasure before I post that one. Aaron

Two things... first the study was published in the American Journal of Chinese Medicine, which is more qigong friendly than most scientific journals tend to be. In other words this isn't an objective study. Also the findings seem a bit vague, especially in the degree of pain and the alleviation of pain from the practice of qigong. Finally, if this has to do with a bet, I can guarantee if it's dependent on proof of actual ability, Stig isn't going to lose any money. Aaron

John C. H. Wu and Robert Henricks are my two favorite. Wu was a native born Taiwanese who went to great lengths to translate as close to the original text as he could. Henricks is a scholar who did the same. Aaron

Oh God... please don't tell me you just said the Taoist rejection of doctrinal morality? Did you miss my last discourse on this subject? Taoism is just as moralistic a doctrine as any other philosophy or religion out there. I can go through line by line and list all the moral imperatives Lao Tzu gives his readers. I constantly get irritated when people who want to live a lifestyle that suits them use the Tao Te Ching as an excuse to do so. I'm not sure what Tao Te Ching you're reading, but it sounds like you've cut out the parts you don't like and are only paying attention to those that you do. Also, it has absolutely nothing to do with balance or neutrality, it has to do with harmony and not struggling with things. There is a big difference between the two. Now I'm not going to argue with you about this, but unless you provide me with this long list of evidence regarding balance, please don't expect me to accept this as factual, especially since I've been reading the Tao Te Ching for over 20 years and have already had (and disproved) this argument more time than I can count. Aaron

There once was a boy name tulku, who... oh nevermind, I think you get where this is going. Long drawn out DRAMATIC titles, grandiose messages with an apocalyptic bent... I'm not saying who's who, but if you draw a picture and it looks the same each time, well you might be drawing the same thing. Aaron

Thanks for your elaboration but I don't think that's actually what it is about. You're misplacing the whole yin-yang chinese traditional philosophy onto the three treasures, which are actually explained in great detail in other chapters, in particular the three treasures are intended to encourage a harmonious life with others, not so much about balance, although self-interest may play a small part, although I think Lao Tzu would've wanted it to be altruistic rather than self-involved. "Only he who is willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of the world is worthy of ruling it" and all that. Of course that is my own opinion, so you can take it or leave. Aaron

Nice stuff. Your analogy was a bit strange, but overall a good explanation of one way to learn to practice compassionate action. Thanks for the input and you're welcome for the thread. Aaron

Why Taoism? Uggh... Don't become a Taoist! Become a Ladist, that's where it's at. As you pointed out labels are pointless, be what you are. I've known people that cling to labels and it always seems like they do so in order to draw attention to themselves. Just be yourself and try to understand what you are reading, but also try to practice what's talked about in the Tao Te Ching. The three treasures are a good place to start, compassion (love, mercy), frugality (conservation, mindfulness), and never striving to be first in the world (humility, contentment) will get you further towards enlightenment than sitting in a lotus position will ever be able to do. However meditation doesn't hurt either. Aaron

I feel for you. This is really a hard place to be. Without knowing more about the father and what state he is in there's not much I could offer as far as advice goes. Here is my suggestion though, try talking to him. Ask him in for a cup of coffee, sit down and let him know you care, not by simply saying it, but by showing through your actions that you care. He has lost his wife and sadly, many children who lose one parent, lose both parents through the process. It is sad, but the last thing you need to do is get wrapped up in that sadness yourself. As far as the boy goes, let him know you care and are there for him. The most important thing children need is security in their life. If this boy knows he has security at his friend's home, that will go a long way towards helping him through his own loss. Hopefully his father will come around, but if he doesn't at least you did what you could for the boy. Remember adults are capable of caring for themselves, children are not. Care for the child, console the adult, and let time heal the wounds. Also, remember, as Dawei pointed out, no one is to blame here, so the last thing you should do is enter into this with the notion of blame. "Drop humanity, be done with justice, and the people will return to their natural affections." (TTC Chapter 19, tr. John C. H. Wu). Aaron

I don't have a definition, nor do I try and define it. As it states here, the moment you try and define it, you only come away with a mere husk of what Tao is. It is better to experience Tao and from that experience learn to live in harmony with others. Aaron

My personal forum still has my old nickname, can one of the moderators change it to Aaron? Aaron the Amazing would be fine too. Just kidding. Aaron

The earliest references to Lao Tzu being reincarnated was in the Han dynasty. Reincarnation in general has been a traditional belief in Taoist philosophy since around 200 BC. Chuang Tzu himself alludes to the notion of reincarnation when he says, "Birth is not a beginning; death is not an end. There is existence without limitation; there is continuity without a starting-point. Existence without limitation is Space. Continuity without a starting point is Time. There is birth, there is death, there is issuing forth, there is entering in." As a reminder, any discussion regarding the validity of texts needs to be done outside the chapter study threads. Aaron

I have a hard time understanding how this passage has anything to do with karma, predetermination, destiny, or anything such as that, but rather I think it's about the very first lesson we learn about the Tao, which is simply, "Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name." (tr. Wu). So when we decide to define Tao, we are not experiencing Tao, but rather separating what we believe to be a piece of Tao, and in so doing losing the essence of Tao. We see the butterfly, "know" what it is supposed to do, but the fact that we have chosen to try and possess it and know it, means that it is no longer a living true butterfly, but rather a husk of what it once was. Aaron

The world is always changing, and though we are the world we see, we tend to believe we are separate from this world. We are no more separate from the world than we are our finger or hair, in fact it's our perception that causes us to believe that we are. The fact we say "our finger" or "our hair" shows us exactly how delusional we are. We are not "our hair", in that we possess our hair, so much as we are our hair. Just as we are our finger. Neither is a separate entity. We like to think we are drivers in a vehicle, not realizing we are that vehicle, and it wont be until we understand that we are the vehicle, that we can also begin to understand that we are the universe around us, just as the bacteria in our stomach is us. We are separate from nothing, yet the perception that we choose to see the world, the way we were taught to view and interact with the world, causes us to believe that we are not the world, or even a part of it so much, as a separate world altogether. And perhaps in a deluded sense we are, but it is certainly deluded, for there is nothing that points to this, in fact the scientist and spiritualist will both tell you that we are everything and everything is us. So with that long paragraph, I bid you adieu and good luck on your exploration of reality. Open your eyes, not only so you can see without, but also within, for the answers you seek are not without, but within, for the face you are searching for, the face of creation, was the face you wore before you were born, and the only image of that face that exists is within you, not without. Aaron

Howdy guys (and gals), I was gone for a few days while I moved to Washington State from Florida. I've finally got settled in a bit. I'm living south west of Seattle in a little town called Aberdeen now. I lived here for about 10 years at one time, so it's not new to me, but getting used to the weather is taking time. Lots and lots of rain! It's been a bit chilly too, but I'm managing. Anyways, if there are any Bums in the area, give me a shout. I'd love to meet up with other like minded people. Aaron

I really like tea... I might have to check out the first one. I've been banned twice from the Tea House... one of only a few people, so I'm special in that regard. Actually many of the people here were banned from the Tea House. It's much older than Tao Bums, one of the first online forums. Not a bad site, but very rigid in its policies. If you speak out against I-Kuan Tao, Derik, or the moderators, your time on the site will be limited. When that happens they tend to twist the rules to suit their own actions, but what forum do we know that doesn't do that? Aaron

I think this is really an uncalled for comment. Being spiritual isn't just about what you do in your day to day life, but your awareness of the world around you. If we're not aware of the damage that's being done to the world, then there's not much room for change. It amazes me that people seem to have little issue with antisemitic rants and gay-bashing, but talking about the environment and the actual wrongs being done in society is somehow not welcome speaks volumes for our own spirituality. Aaron