Aaron

Hmm... you seem to answer every answer with a question. Maybe you shouldn't worry so much about this stuff. Perhaps you're not ready to change yourself and you're stuck on changing others. That's okay. We all evolve at our own pace. Aaron

Why must you control me? What is it that makes you want me to be like you? What is wrong with me and right with you? What right do you have to decide what is right for me? If what I do does not harm you, then why do you choose to harm me? Do my words harm your body? Do my words harm your soul? Let go of my words. Have faith in what is here and now and you can let everything else go.

I'm glad you liked it. Thanks.

I am constantly amazed at how many people feel attacked because I encourage others to think for themselves, rather than blindly follow dogma. It seems that the notion of free-thinking is a dangerous notion indeed. I would encourage people to read my signature if they have questions as to how one can keep lies alive. Aaron

Hmm... ideology has run amock in this post. You've been told 'tis so, so 'tis so, is it not? Obviously since my experience deviates from what you've been taught, it has to be false. Quit listening to the truth and discover it for yourself. Aaron edit- Oh and in case you missed it in my signature, can you recognize your response here... "The last and favorite resort of the clergy when they are questioned too closely is: their questioners simply don't understand; they are "uninstructed and amateurish." "Unless you accept our interpretation of the texts," the layman is told, "you obviously do not understand them. And if you don't understand them, you have no right to question our interpretation of them!" And so the layman is put in his place. The guarded degree, the closed corporation, the technical vocabulary, these are the inner redoubt, the inviolable stronghold of usurped authority. Locked safe within the massive and forbidding walls of institution and formality lies what the Egyptians called "the king's secret," the secret of controlling the past." - Hugh Nibley

I agree. (On the side, I don't think Taoism teaches you not to have a teacher, but rather not to blindly follow others.) Aaron

Great story! I'm happy to see that you found an alternative to modern "medicine". I ended up the emergency room recently because of severe stomach pain and the nurse commented that my heart rate was very low and asked if that was normal, I asked her, "well is it?" Anyways, I credit it to meditation. (It ended up being Irritable Bowel Syndrome.) Aaron

With practice you can reach a point where you don't pay attention to your breathing. I discussed this briefly in my Introduction to Silent Mind Meditation awhile back. It takes some time. For most focusing on breathing is the easiest way to reach a silent-mind state, but at some point it does become a distraction, because you are subtly still thinking of your breathing. In the end you have to let the thought of breathing go, which can become difficult, (some people even hyperventilate when they do this), but if you continue to let the conscious thought of breathing go, eventually you can begin your meditation without having to focus on anything, but simply entering a silent-mind state. (Note- I would suggest not paying attention to the effects on the diaphragm and instead letting these things go as well. In the end they are just more distractions.) Good luck with your practice. It sounds like you're on the right track. Remember practice is the key. Aaron

I would suggest researching the need in the job market for the degree you want to pursue. Many technical degrees offered are not necessarily in high demand in the job market. Also stay away from technical schools, such as Everest or Devry if you can. I would suggest an actual community college or university for your degree. In most cases these degrees are much less expensive than the technical schools in the first place. Since you are 35 you might even get special consideration for your age, not sure. Good luck either way. I didn't go back to school til I was 23 or 24, so I know about starting late, but it was worth it. Oh, by the way, I'm 43 and installing office furniture now, so I unload trucks every day with a bachelor's degree under my belt. In my experience it's best not to put too much faith in those sorts of things. Aaron

Good points. I think if we're to accept that the Master is Lao Tzu (from Ni's translation and the fact that one could even see Walker's as pointing to Lao Tzu,) then where do we go from there? Do we accept the words of Lao Tzu as our master or search for Taoist a master to teach us? Even then how do we know if he's teaching us Lao Tzu's teachings or his own? This is where reading ahead comes in handy, because this is addressed later on, but I don't want to be a spoiler, so I'll leave it at that.

Well it's nice to see that both are quite similar, just a few variations in the translations. Ni's sounds more like a autobiography, sort of like the book of John, whereas Walker's seems more like Psalms. Is that how you would view it? Aaron edit- In Ni's case the master would most likely have been Lao Tzu himself... that is interesting indeed.

If I gave you an answer I'd be a shyster. If you took even the first step towards understanding Tao, you'd know that. Here's the good news, it's all within you. If you spend time meditating and practicing compassion, it will come to you, but I can't explain it for you. Done that, been there, and it just doesn't work. Aaron

And herein lies the problem, ideology and dogma. Unless it's explained as everything else is explained, it's false. I spent twenty years reading the Tao Te Ching over and over, so not just once or twice, but hundreds of times, a chapter or two before bed each night. If you recall I was on the anti-HHC bandwagon, primarily because of what I read on Wikipedia, but I realized at some point I was a hypocrite if I didn't actually take the time to read the document. What I found wasn't a nagging feeling, but rather a more direct explanation of much of what was found in the Tao Te Ching. The same things addressed in the Hua Hu Ching are addressed in the Tao Ta Ching, the only difference is a lot of the obfuscation and introspection to come to those conclusions is gone. I took the time to read it with an open mind, not closing myself off to it with the preconception that it was false and dangerous, but rather to examine it for what it was. Was it written by the same authors as the Tao Te Ching? Certainly not. Is it a text one can read and understand the nature of being at harmony with the world, and more importantly understand the nature of Tao more completely? YES! So if anyone is looking for a book by Lao Tzu, then look elsewhere, because remember the Tao Te Ching was most likely not written by Lao Tzu, in fact there is no actual factual evidence he ever existed, it's all circumstantial. If you're looking for proof in any of this, then it isn't there, sometimes you just need to read things and decide whether they're useful or not for yourself. Or of course you can have the experts explain it to you and then accept that opinion as your own, it's much easier. Jeesh people, think for yourself. Read it and think for yourself. Aaron

In Google Chrome some of the ads for the site aren't centered. Aaron

I like this first chapter, because it speaks volumes about the concepts of compassion and frugality. I think it's interesting that the author makes a point of saying that the concepts being taught will be lost if they are turned into a religion or science. I also think it's important to note that he says, "entire truth of the universe" rather than "entire truth in the universe". Certainly something to remember. The comments about taking joy in your daily life seems absent in most Taoist teachings, so it was kind of refreshing to see it here. Keep in mind, I think the master spoken of here isn't a "guru", but the actual master who ruled the province, which is important, because, if that's true, that denotes that this text isn't intended for the ruling elite, so much as the commoner. Anyways that's my two cents. Aaron edit- The master is something that really deserves more investigation. Depending on what type of master it is, denotes what kind of instruction we're receiving.

What is "it"? Are you asking me if I've experienced the undefinable? If I did, then it wasn't undefinable now was it? Aaron

Chidragon, In the many years I've known you, one thing I've learned is that the only translation of any chinese text that you seem to think is authentic is your own. Most of us realize that this is just an attempt to ruffle feathers and meet your own agenda. Why not just come out and say that, rather than play this little game? Aaron

This is why you never discuss Tao. It can only be experienced. When you experience it you wont feel the need to define it. Until that happens feel free to continue to hypothesize, if nothing else, it makes for great bedtime reading. Aaron

Hello Apech, And what I'm saying is that you can't have dualism without non-dualism, the thing most people don't understand is that they are both the same thing. The only thing that changes is your perception of them. The reason people say dualism is an illusion is because they tend to forget that, although transient and illusory in the sense of what we perceive it to be, it is real and there. Just like love and hate are the same thing, so are dualism and non-dualism, they are existence, just how we choose to define it. In reality defining it changes nothing, it really just confuses things more. Exist and don't worry about non-dualism and dualism and things become much simpler. Aaron

Chidragon... this debate should end here. This isn't the place for this discussion. If you want to discuss this further take it elsewhere, otherwise I'll ask for moderator action. This is a discussion about the meaning of Chapter One of the Hua Hu Ching, not the place for you to express your notions of veracity or authenticity. This is also the reason why we should have a subforum for Taoists Texts and Studies, so these kinds of off-topic discussions don't occur. I had hoped people would read the original post and respect my requests for an on-topic discussion. Seriously, I'm very disappointed. Please don't reply to this post, send me a personal message. This topic has been taken off-topic enough as it is. Aaron

Umm... I'm not sure who you are trying to convince, but no one thinks I'm like that. In fact I'm the one that encourages people to think for themselves, not have people (like you) tell them how to think. That's the difference between you and I. I want them to think for themselves, you want them to think according to your religious ideology. Ahh.. work calls... Aaron

Very good point, but remember that experiencing non-dualism, doesn't remove one from dualism. Even understanding that dualism is an "illusion" and I use that term loosely, doesn't mean that we are free from the dualistic world. So, before enlightenment you chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment you chop wood and carry water. The world is still here, whether we see through the illusion or not, it's just you see through it and find the root cause. So being rid of attachments, doesn't mean you are rid of attachments, attachments (even transitory) are still here, we only see the true nature of attachments. This is what confuses most people and it's part of the entanglement of misleading notions (imo) that cause many to believe achieving enlightenment will remove all suffering, it doesn't. Now many advanced practitioners can manage pain, show little emotion due to loss of someone else, etc., but this isn't because they have no "attachments", or don't feel these things, it's because they understand the nature of these attachments and are able to address them as they "really" are. Life is only illusionary in the sense that there is more to it than just life. There is the infinity, tao, non-dualism, whatever you want to call it, and when one experiences that, they are able to see these things with clarity. So before enlightenment you chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment you chop wood and carry water. Enlightenment doesn't free you from the burden of living, it only grants clarity as to the nature of living. Aaron edit- And note, enlightened people do not know everything, they just gain a special awareness to the nature of things. You understand that death is not something to be mourned, but you don't understand how to perform brain surgery (or build a rocket). Enlightenment does not bring all-knowing, just a clarity of understanding. With that said, enlightened people make mistakes, say stupid things, and have physical ailments, just like everyone else. Placing enlightenment on a pedestal is a mistake, for the mentally unbalanced can reach enlightenment and their perception can be skewed. In other words, don't accept everything someone says without question (me included). Think for yourself, rather than have others think for you.

Suffering is the response to negative things that are happening to you. A buddha who has a toothache still has a toothache, the fact he is a buddha doesn't relieve him of that suffering. What you fail to recognize is that the truth is not that suffering is gone, but that you see through suffering, you understand the nature of suffering. Suffering is not a consequence of desire, but a natural part of the dualistic world we live in, it is only when we can perceive the non-dualistic nature of existence that we understand suffering as it really is. You haven't reached that point, so you are still placing your faith in those teachers who have told you the "truth". My suggestion, examine these things for yourself. Abandon the notion of Buddha, Buddhism, the short path, and instead examine them with an open and clear mind and see what you find. In the end you'll see, almost certainly, that enlightenment doesn't remove suffering, it only allows one to see through it. Also, Aaron believes that any dialogue that is spoken with malice, intentionally demeans people for personal gratification, and causes people to suffer unnecessarily is not compassionate. Aaron

I didn't read your entire post, because once you started in on Christianity I knew what was coming, but let me make a point to you about how to communicate compassionately. Just so you know, any conversation that causes another person to suffer, especially if it was intentional, is never compassionate. Compassion is not about causing suffering, but liberating people from suffering, as you like to put it. What I see in this post and your other posts is your continued lack of recognition of this fact, though, sadly, I think you understand it but dismiss it. I am not a supporter of the gregorian calender, but in light of the suffering of the world, I see many more issues as being more important than attacking other people who are enjoying one day of the year. Perhaps helping out in a shelter would help... here's a little story. My twin brother, whom I love dearly, and is perhaps my closest friend, has always been a bit self absorbed and egocentric. Recently he got a job working for Habitat for Humanity, but was let go for various reasons. My first thought, knowing my brother, was that he would become resentful of the organization and charities in particular, but that wasn't the case. Having recently moved to our hometown and having the chance to have Christmas dinner with his mother and sisters for the first time in 12 years, he told them he couldn't because he had volunteered to feed the homeless at a shelter. This floored me. It seems that his time at the Habitat for Humanity, even with the negative outcome, had sparked a spirit in him that he wasn't aware of. He said that he understood how hard it was for the homeless and he wanted to do everything he could to help out. Now, if one of the most self-absorbed people I know could suddenly come out himself and become so uncharacteristically selfless (Brother if you're reading this, I love you, but you know it's true), then how is it that you can't? Perhaps it's because you don't see real suffering? Perhaps you should stop musing about suffering and compassion, philosophically masturbating over the notion, and instead get your hands dirty and actually lend a helping hand to those in need? Which is more important, feeding someone who is hungry food or shoving a philosophical ideology down their throat? Which is going to help their bodies and which will end up causing them to starve to death? Without helping the body, we can never help the spirit. Lao Tzu believed this and I do too. Aaron

HAPPY CHRISTIAN GREGORIAN ANTI-PAGAN NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!