Aaron

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this passage. I'm not particularly fond of Theravada Buddhism's sutras to be honest. If you can find a Mahayana or Tibetan Buddhist sutra that says the same thing, I'd be more prone to discuss this further, otherwise, for me, it's effect, not intent. Aaron

Josama why do you feel that you have an entity? Aaron

Never say "un-flowy reading it makes for" again and I forgive you. Aaron

Right Speech has nothing to do with intent. It has to do with the effects of your speech. The criteria of questions to ask yourself is only there to help ensure that you practice right speech. So you are either practicing right speech or not, simply intending to practice is not enough. Aaron

There is nothing "wrong" with eating meat. In fact most Buddhists eat meat, as do most Taoists, you see vegetarianism in the monastic traditions for the most part. Many westerners don't have a sense of balance in their life so they feel this need to throw themselves into something all or nothing, but the fact of the matter is that humans are omnivores. If we weren't omnivores at certain points in history we would've certainly died off. Now that doesn't mean that we should exclusively eat meat, just that eating meat isn't necessarily cruel or unusual. We're not asking the tigers to stop hunting (or playing with their prey, which they do), yet we seem to want humans to stop doing something that is absolutely natural to their being. I was a vegetarian from the age of 20 to around 29. For about four or five years I didn't eat eggs. I look back upon that time with little remorse, but at the same time I understand that it was my desire to appear compassionate that drove me to vegetarianism, more than the actual act of compassion. I wore leather without any issues, yet I never ate meat, for example. In looking at my life now compared to then, I think I am much more beneficial to my fellow man now as a meat eater, practicing compassion in my actions, then I was as a vegetarian, doing what I thought was compassionate. Killing an animal for sustenance is not wrong. Cruelty to animals is. That's the major difference that most people seem to forget. I advocate the compassionate treatment of animals, but not vegetarianism. (On a side note, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Chuang Tzu all ate meat). Aaron

percent, as in the amount of the topic that relates to a spiritual or philosophical practice. Aaron

It's not a sickness, rather anyone who believes they have the truth should feel compelled to spread that truth, otherwise they are most likely a very callous and uncaring person. However if one is doing it solely because they feel compelled by doctrine or ideology, then that is not the right reason. I can usually tell the genuinely faithful from the dutiful practitioner. With that said, if someone tells me they're feeling depressed, I don't ignore that, I try to help them out by offering my own life experience dealing with depression. If someone says they are having doubts regarding the existence of God, I offer my experience there. The difference is that I don't see people as being flawed and in need of fixing, so I don't consciously go out and try to fix people. However if someone is suffering I do everything in my power to try and alleviate that suffering. Aaron

Well this topic is 2% spiritual and 98% off-topic. I would suggest at least 25% spiritual to qualify for this section. Aaron

Troll, troll, troll, troll.... troll........ troll........................ troll.............................................. troll..................................................... You get the picture? Alright report me for whatever you want, but I've done nothing wrong. You're just trying to bully me into silence because your information is lacking. Aaron edit- I had to listen to Rush Limbaugh in the truck at work a few days after the Sandy Hook tragedy. Rush was very adamant about the number of people that stopped crimes because they had a concealed weapons permit, so I'm very aware of the statistics, of course have you checked the statistics for the number of people who have a registered gun and commit murder using it?

Actually the problem could be a shell script in The Tao Bums forum software. I would recommend the forum tech moderator check this out. The other issue is that it could be a IP hijack from this site, so that any attempt to reach this site through google is directed there. If you notice it's only when you click on the site link from google, not if you type the actual address out. Of course either way the site isn't incredibly dangerous, just tracking software and such from what I've gathered. Still click leave the page when you have the option and you should be fine. If you're worried about clicking on a pop up, just right click on your browser on the task bar and click "close all pages". Aaron edit- after a bit of research it seems to be related to IP Board software. It might have to do with lingering javascript, not completely certain, but I would recommend that the site does a hard refresh and after said refresh recommend to all forum users that they clear their browser cache.

Well lets face it, this thread really has no place in the General Discussion section. It's not even remotely spiritual, just political rhetoric. Why it hasn't been moved to Off Topic is beyond me. I would really like a clarification in the FAQ so people would stop posting these kinds of threads here and start posting them in Off Topic. Aaron

Actually the 7.62mm is almost completely restricted to rifles made in the Eastern Bloc countries. In America and NATO countries they use .5.56mm ammo for their guns. The rifle used in almost every mass shooting that's occurred in the United States over the last year is the AR15 or an AR15 variant (which is a refined and updated model of the M16) which uses a .223 caliber round. The .223 can shoot through nearly anything on a car except the engine block. Now why would an ordinary citizen need a gun that powerful? You can't hunt with it, it would shred the animal to pieces. There is only one purpose for these guns and that's simply to kill people. That's why they are called Assault Rifle (AR in other words) rather than recreational rifles. The people starting all of these conspiracy theories are anti-government nutters that simply want to support their own twisted beliefs about the government. The fact that much of your rhetoric is spouted verbatim on conservative radio shows tells me that you're getting your information second hand and you're not even aware of it. Now that makes me wonder why? If you want to find the conspiracy, it's not with the government, but those who are trying to oppose the ban on assault rifles. The NRA, militia groups, etc. It seems clear as day to me, can't see why anyone else can't see it. Aaron edit- Also, go into any sheriffs department in the country and you'll find that the line you get into for fingerprints for a "concealed carry" actually has a sing that says "For Concealed Weapons Permit". What's even more disturbing is that you'll find a lot of people in those lines.

The Tao Te Ching states that the Sage teaches through example, not through words. I take that to heart. I don't try to explain what I am to anyone. On forums, where like minded people congregate, I will share my understanding and beliefs, but I try very hard to remember that everyone is entitled to believe what they want, even if I might view it as being wrong or harmful. In the end it's our responsibility to care for ourselves and it is our decision to care for those who can't care for themselves. Even then we should only intercede if what is happening is causing them actual harm, and not just perceived harm. Aaron

Umm... Concealed carry is not the term used for a concealed weapons permit. In fact the link you posted says, "Concealed Carry or Carrying a Concealed Weapon in the United States" as the title of the wikipedia article, but anyone who knows about guns knows what it has ALWAYS been referred to. Oh, and just to clarify, automatic rifles do not have armor piercing rounds, rather the size of the round penetrates most kevlar armor, including the armor worn by law enforcement. Armor piercing rounds refers to rounds that are specifically designed to pierce armor, in particular lightly armored vehicles, such as APCs. At least know what you're talking about before you start spouting off "facts". Aaron

I thought it would be nice to have a thread where people could let others know when they were in the Chat channel on the website. If you would like to join me, I'll be hanging out there today (4/10/2012) from 11:30 AM to noon EST. If no one shows by then I'll head off and do something else. Aaron

Up until the newtown tragedy they called them concealed weapons permits, I wonder why that's changed? Aaron

Hmm... since Rush Limbaugh was saying the same thing as you have said here, almost verbatim, I would say that you are associated with his ideas, if not him personally. All of this misinformation is being spread by nut jobs trying to justify their right to bear arms that are solely intended to kill people. None of this conspiracy crap has any factual basis, it's all based on half truths. Aaron

Well someone's been listening to Rush Limbaugh, or at least you quote him word for word. And we're the blind conformists? Rush has an agenda, in particular to the NRA, one of the largest contributors to the republican party. I wouldn't use him as a source for objective arguments. Aaron

I don't see anything in the official story that seems fabricated. Then again I'm not advocating that the 2nd amendment means we should all be able to own automatic weapons for self defense either. Perhaps the reason I don't see anything is because fear doesn't induce me too. I'm not afraid of losing anything, so I don't see anything to justify that fear. Again, there is no PROOF, just circumstantial evidence that leads nowhere. Oh wait, but then that's because the government or whoever else you want to say is pulling the strings here, covered it up now, isn't it? And by the way, who are the leftists here? Aaron edit- The second amendment was intended to insure that we didn't require a standing army, but rather we maintained a militia to provide security for the country (from tyrannical rulers outside the USA). The bill was directly related to the King of England's disarming of several prominent protestants deemed a threat to England. The irony is that they actually were a threat to England (as seen by the rebellion), so he was most likely justified in his attempt to restrict their "right to bear arms". Of course the notion of the right to bear arms is deeply entrenched in English sentiment, however the right was not so much to prevent a tyrannical government from taking power (since the king was the sovereign ruler according to God's will), but rather to protect one's property. In light of that, does it seem reasonable that we need assault rifles and handguns to do that? Most police recommend shotguns for personal safety. So with that said, most 2nd amendment advocates have no real idea as to the reason for or cause of the 2nd amendment. It's amazing it's taken this long for people to come to their senses.

I don't remember anyone making any personal comments, perhaps you're seeing something that isn't there? Aaron

If you want to see something, you'll see it. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm not a conformist, nor am I a coward. I just see this as a horrible way to press an agenda. Creating a conspiracy based around the deaths of innocent children is abhorrent! It's essentially trivializing their suffering to push your own agenda, whether that be anti-gun control, anti-government ranting, or just plain crazy talk. The problem with people who believe conspiracy theories is that they already believe, all they need is a little "evidence" to support their claims. The fact that nothing can be proven just spices the pot, because then it's a cover up. The average conspiracy theorists follow certain psychological pathology. They are often isolated from society, socially maladjusted, feel threatened by authority, and lack success in their own life (i.e. never succeed at a career, develop lasting relationships,etc.) They develop conspiracies as a way to rationalize their own failings and also create a role for themselves that makes them important (they see through it all, while the conformists, sheeple, etc. don't). Or they say it's the shadow government that's set up the world in such a way that they can't succeed for example. If you want to continue this tripe, feel free, but remember every untruth you spread is like spitting on the graves of the victims at Sandy Hook. If you don't have actual factual evidence that can be supported and backed up, then I would suggest to anyone who's jumping on this bandwagon to shut the f*#@ up til you do. Aaron edit- With that said, you're free to say whatever you want, but in the same way I'm free to call this stuff nonsense and abhorrent.

This is one f*&*ed up thread. Children died, parent's are mourning, and you're making up conspiracy theories. Anyone with a tenth of a working brain can see that none of this conspiracy crap is even worth considering, unless you're already predisposed towards hating the government and creating said conspiracy. Nothing is more cruel and calous than trivializing the deaths of these innocent children. Grow up. Get out of the f-ing house and stop believing that everything is a conspiracy. Aaron edited for grammar

This is a good question. I think if one reads the text you see a recurring theme of helping everyone, regardless of who they are. In the same sense, one could see this passage as a reminder that it is because the sage understands the nature of things, he is able to put them to use. The rotten fruit can be used for fertilizer, the leg that broke off the chair can be used to build a coat wrack, etc. Remember, a lot of people will apply a mystic connotation to a lot of these phrases, but Lao Tzu firmly advocated frugality as one of the three most precious things a person can attain. Frugality, not just in personal interactions, but in "ALL" things. Aaron

They have signs like these up on certain sections of highway with high frequencies of head on collisions. It seems that the main cause is falling asleep at the wheel. It's because of the long stretches of straight road without much change in the scenery. Of course we could tell them to take the signs down because it's not their/our responsibility to remind people to stay awake, since that's a given, or we could say, well you know there might be that one person who gets tired, sees the sign and shakes it off rather than falls asleep and crashes headlong into a minivan killing an entire family. Aaron

I was debating whether to reply to this thread or just let it go the way of the dodo, but I thought that something needed to be said. First, for those who are defending Taoism, there is no need. If you're defending the truth, then remember that every truth is lie. We can't live our lives fighting, that's not what life's about. Life is about living in the moment we are living. I have already stated that the Hua Hu Ching was most likely not written by Lao Tzu (I'm actually almost certain). With that said, I can also almost certainly say that it was written by Taoists, not Buddhists. I see it as an attempt to remind people of the actual Taoist principles that were taught in the Tao Te Ching, as they were understood at that time. We as westerners like to believe we have a firm grasp of what Taoism means, yet we are not really Taoists, in the sense that the Eastern practitioners are. If we need any sign of this, just look at how seriously we take all this crap. Lao Tzu wouldn't involve himself in this argument. He would let it go, simply because it wouldn't solve anything. Lao Tzu was a firm believer in the notion of returning to our original nature, and that returning to that nature required compassion. Taomeow- Ask yourself this, why did you not reply to what I said to you? Lao Tzu says that the Good men are the teachers of bad men. He also said that the three greatest treasures he had were Compassion, Frugality (self control), and not competing with others. If this is a competition, then we've both already lost. To everyone else, Lao Tzu said that the way to understanding Tao is examining the world around us, understanding how the world worked, but also examining ourselves, for just as Tao can be found in the Mother, it can be found within each of us, for we are part of the Mother. We don't really need the Hua Hu Ching, Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, Heat Sutra, Holy Bible, Quran, or any other text to teach us this, if we honestly look within and recognize our connection to each other. With that said, most people don't take the time to look within themselves, so they look without in the hopes of finding the answer to the secrets we all crave there. The fact of the matter is that if someone isn't ready, then no text they read will make them ready. I started up the Hua Hu Ching study because I saw Lao Tzu's teaching there. I didn't see Buddhism, nor Taoism, but rather the essential teachings of Lao Tzu. Of course there are passages I think are gratuitous, but I also see passages, that if someone takes them to heart, will benefit them a hundredfold. That's what I hoped for, that people would study it, see those passages and possibly have a life altering experience, one for the better. For me, if people can't find something on their own, then maybe being exposed to something that can jump start them on that journey isn't so bad, as long as they are objective and open minded and remember to question things. I hope that people can see how ridiculous this debate really is, especially as Taoists. If we can then we can let this go and let people live as they want to. When we can hear the rooster crow in the next town and not know what is happening there, then we're beginning to understand how Lao Tzu wanted us to interact with others. Worry about ourselves first and let others live their own lives as they choose. Aaron