Aaron

Sinasencer, We've gone through this before. Read the thread titled "Friendship is a Trap" and you'll understand a bit better. Also, you're really too wrapped up in this stuff. You're young, get away from the computer and go outside and enjoy the fresh air, chat with your chums, experience life. You're thinking too much and experiencing too little. I'd recommend a break, at least for a week from all things philosophical. You keep going like this and you'll snap, sooner than later. Aaron

It's good that you've left, if you had stayed your faith might have been called into question. Can't have that now can we? Some points I'll make as you leave hastily through the door. Spiritual Materialism is a Buddhist idea created by Buddhists, for Buddhists, to make Buddhists feel superior in their beliefs. Now I can spell this out and provide the evidence for this, but all one needs to do is read the Wikipedia article to understand. From what I've read it's not even a widely accepted theory outside of Buddhism and in the context of this discussion, it's pure gold, because it actually validates much of what I've said. Religions poison the minds of their followers, in this case by planting the seed that seeking spirituality out of the confines of religion is a result of one's ego. Of course the whole premise is a bit loony and self-conceited in and of itself, but who are we to judge? Oh wait, we are supposed to judge! We're supposed to look at these things and judge for ourselves whether they're right or wrong. So the question now is why does someone have the right to denigrate those who choose to achieve a spiritual practice outside the confines of religion? Of course the bottom line is that this is an attack on the non-religious by the religious. The question is what does religion have to gain from this? Well it helps to keep people from going astray by telling them what an erroneous and ignorant thing searching for answers on one's own is, how selfish and narcissistic it is to not rely on others to show them the way. Absolute bullshit here. I don't normally say that, but your advancement of spiritual materialism should be a warning sign to all those who are on the fence about this. Apparently religions are well aware of the fact that people are choosing a spiritual practice outside of religion and feels threatened enough to attack the idea. Think for yourself. If something doesn't harm someone else or yourself, then why should you feel the need to attack it. Now if you ask me why I am attacking religion, it's quite simple really, religion causes a great deal of harm and as a compassionate man it is my responsibility to make sure people are aware of this. Again, absolute rubbish. It's good that you've left rather than defend spiritual materialism. An idea like this really shouldn't be spread, it does more harm than you probably even realize. Aaron

I just wanted to respond real quickly, this is more rhetoric. You're using semantics to try and prove a point, with absolutely no real proof to back it up. You say spiritual materialism was displayed in the first post, can you pick out where I allude to that? Rather than argue like a politician and create evidence that doesn't exist, why don't you try and make a real argument based on real facts? From there we can actually have a discussion. Aaron

Alright, for those who seem to believe that what I'm saying is poison, let me provide evidence, rather than supposition. Since this is supposed to be a Taoist forum, hence the name "Tao Bums", let me start with Lao Tzu... Tao Te Ching Chapter 38 (tr. John C. H. Wu) HIGH Virtue is non-virtuous; Therefore it has Virtue. Low Virtue never frees itself from virtuousness; Therefore it has no Virtue. High Virtue makes no fuss and has no private ends to serve: Low Virtue not only fusses but has private ends to serve. High humanity fusses but has no private ends to serve: High morality not only fusses but has private ends to serve. High ceremony fusses but finds no response; Then it tries to enforce itself with rolled-up sleeves. Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue. Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity. Failing humanity, man resorts to morality. Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony. Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty; It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder. As to foreknowledge, it is only the flower of Tao, And the beginning of folly. Therefore, the full-grown man sets his heart upon the substance rather than the husk; Upon the fruit rather than the flower. Truly, he prefers what is within to what is without. Now it really shocks me that I have to explain this to Taoists, but the fact is Lao Tzu didn't believe in Taoism, he believed in learning through one's own experiences and relying, not on ceremony (prayers, rituals, dogma, etc.), or morality (a set code of religious conduct), but rather delving within ourselves to find the answer. Lao Tzu himself set down exactly what causes man to fail in achieving there connection with their true selves and it begins with one's reliance on religion, to fear what others have told you to fear, to not recognize the difference between "eh" and "Oh" because someone has told you there is no difference. Those who are threatened by what I've said should examine their faith, for their lack of faith shows in their responses. A man of faith should read what I've said and simply shrug it off, but a man wavering in his faith will see what I've said as a threat to, not only his faith, but himself, for what is worse than being shown an inkling of the husk that they've allowed themselves to become? Lao Tzu and Rumi both said this same thing, in fact it's plain as day, but the fact of the matter is most people are too afraid to examine reality on their own. They fear what they might find, or have been told they'll find, and rather than experience the truth, they accept lies, because the lies have flavor, taste, they are filled with rewards, while the truth is bland, tasteless, it's only reward is peace of mind and an awakening of the true you. The sad fact is most people are afraid because they confuse the true them with the them that they've been told they are. How many times are people told they are evil at birth, or sinful. How many times have they been told that the urges they have should be repressed because they are wrong or sinful. How many times have they been told that their suffering is caused by their impure hearts? These are all lies. Prayer, meditation, dancing, chanting, and anything else done in ceremony is worthless, it does not point towards the truth, but towards the ceremony itself. They are mere husks of spirituality, they lack any authenticity. If you want authenticity, then you have to look beyond these things. If you're afraid or angry that someone might suggest you do so, ask yourself why? Because the truth is that the problem doesn't lie in what I've said, but in the fear you have of my words. Must you fear what others fear? What abysmal nonsense is this? Aaron

Hmm... nice rhetoric, but no substance. You're using abstract notions that have no real meaning. The subtle jab that I was ignorant was very nice. Well played. I feel very insignificant now, the wounds to my self image may never heal... oh wait, no, I'm fine. Sorry, false alarm. Aaron

Peace in the heart and mind will show themselves in the way you treat others. If someone upsets you to the point you can't be civil, then oftentimes it's best to just say nothing. Aaron

Or rather than have someone else feed you, you could look for an apple for yourself? Again, don't take the easy way out, the benefit of achieving spiritual awareness comes from the work you put into it. You never know what's in the apple someone else gives you, nor the apple you find in the tree, there may be a worm or two, the difference is that you've searched for it and know where it came from. The apple you've plucked for yourself tastes much better, because you were the one who climbed the tree to pick it. Aaron

why do you call atheists non believers? They believe, just not what other people do. in reality, morality is part of the problem. men should do what's right not because its moral, but because it is within the heart to do that. This is one of the reasons why religion is the poison of spirituality.

the irony regarding the Rumi reference is that Rumi would probably agree with me regarding what I've said. in fact Rumi was a great supporter of looking within for the answers and not allowing others to define the world for you, but coming up with the definition on your own,as was Lao Tzu and many other great mystics and prophets. we have just gotten lazy and we would rather have the answers given to us than having to look for them for ourselves. we need to be like little children who seeing the door closed wonder what's within and rather than have somebody tell us what is beyond that door, we open it for ourselves and see what's there with our own eyes. yes it might be scary, but that's half the fun. Aaron

Hmm... lots of "You're wrong" or "you have experienced this so obviously you're a hypocrite", which honestly made absolutely no sense at all, but then again I didn't expect a lot of people to make sense. The very people who refuse to think for themselves, have their religious beliefs spoon fed to them, are the same ones who are so adamant about how wrong I am. Not surprising most people failed to get the point. Think about it, religions are the poison of spirituality. What does that mean? I pointed the way, can't anyone make the leap? Aaron

I think it's much easier to try to place the notion of humanity in a box, because then you have a clear cut answer to what the problem is, no searching, no real work, you just accept what you're told and go from there. I just feel sorry for all the people that waste their time on other people's answers regarding these things, when it's all inside of them. I like Lao Tzu, but I heed his warnings and don't accept everything he teaches without questioning those teachings. I don't laud him as a prophet or messiah, just a man who understood some things. I think the most fatal mistake any of us can make regarding spirituality is when we stop questioning the answers we're given and just accept them without fault. I see the vast majority of the people I talk to lately doing that and it scares me. It should scare them too. Aaron

I'm not one to answer a question for another person, but I think I understand what Clarity is alluding to which follows the principles of what Lao Tzu said, "How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"? What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"? Must I fear what others fear? What abysmal nonsense this is!" (tr. John C. H. Wu) Essentially, as I mentioned and people seemed to ignore, the quantification of human nature can't be achieved by religions or philosophy, rather it is an individual experience, unique to each of us. What you say is basic, may not be basic for someone else. What you call nature (or natural) may not be so for someone else, even what you define as human may not be recognized as such. For instance the Spartans would've looked at the Buddhist definition with a bit of disdain, if not outright contempt. With that in mind, perhaps you would rather have Clarity accept that the Buddhist definition is infallible, but before you do so, perhaps you can explain why it is so. If it is not infallible, then why pursue the discussion? Aaron

Hello ET, You've missed the point. Here's your answer. "When you are lacking in faith, Others will be unfaithful to you." Lao Tzu (tr. John C. H. Wu)

As an outside observer, I will concur that you do hijack threads. It seems that you are more interested in talking about what you want to talk about than what others do. But, as you said, people can ignore you if they so choose. I do, however I didn't want those few who recognized this to believe they were paranoid, so I thought I might concur so their observations are validated. Aaron

Everything is constant. It changes. Dwelling on the past is meaningless, all we have is the present. Missing people doesn't bring them back and I'm sure, if they truly cared for you, they would not want you reminiscing about them, but rather doing something constructive with your life, like reading an online forum at 6 in the morning. Anyways, things will never remain the same. People come and go, life has ups and downs, that's the name of the game. Comparing now to then is playing the game with loaded dice, you'll never win. Just be content with what you have now and see what you have to offer others. Remember... "Only simple and quiet words will ripen of themselves. For a whirlwind does not last a whole morning, Nor does a sudden shower last a whole day. Who is their author? Heaven-and-Earth! Even Heaven-and-Earth cannot make such violent things last long; How much truer is it of the rash endeavours of men? Hence, he who cultivates the Tao is one with the Tao; He who practices Virtue is one with Virtue; And he who courts after Loss is one with Loss. To be one with the Tao is to be a welcome accession to the Tao; To be one with Virtue is to be a welcome accession to Virtue; To be one with Loss is to be a welcome accession to Loss. Deficiency of faith on your part Entails faithlessness on the part of others." Lao Tzu (tr. John C. H. Wu) Aaron

"Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name." Lao Tzu (tr. John C. H. Wu) And thus begins the Tao Te Ching. It's no coincidence Lao Tzu chose to begin his work with this passage (or at least those who came after him chose to do so), because nothing has tripped up more people on the path to enlightenment than the question "how did it all begin" or in this case "What is the reality we live in?" The fact of the matter is that there are questions we can answer and questions we can't. The question of reality isn't really one that can be answered, at least not to everyone's satisfaction, so if one really wants to get sidetracked early on in their spiritual progress, nothing does a better job than asking this question. Lao Tzu would advocate that, rather than question what reality is, we should examine the world and look within ourselves. By doing this we can understand the process of the universe, but not become transfixed on the nature of the universe, which can never be properly described anyways. Curiosity killed the cat, but it can also kill the spiritual seeker. Worry about what is before you, not what is not. It's very simple, but few people seem to realize the importance of this task. Aaron

"When all the world recognises beauty as beauty, this in itself is ugliness. When all the world recognises good as good, this in itself is evil." Lao Tzu (tr. John C. H. Wu) It seems to me that human nature cannot be quantified by cannon or ideology, and though it can be examined by philosophy, it always comes up a bit short. Lao Tzu was an advocate of neither good nor evil, because he understood that neither really exists except within the hearts of men. Lao Tzu never said, "do good, but not evil", rather he urged people to be compassionate, to not compete with others, and to be happy with having what they need. No one is born good or evil. No one is born in sin either, but it is detrimental to any religion to plant this seed in order to ensure people feel something is wrong with them that they need fix. It is also detrimental if you are going to ensure your followers are going to raise their children according to religious doctrine. After all a parent is going to be much more likely to raise their child how you wish them to if you tell them that their child is sinful or evil. Many of you may have failed to realize this or may deny this, simply because you believe wholeheartedly that we must raise our children in a specific sort of way to ensure that they do not become criminals, vagrants, rapists, or mass murderers, but keep in mind that more than a few criminals were raised in religious families. Teaching a child what is good and evil doesn't necessarily ensure that they will become good, rather we should teach our children by example, because after all what sticks with them is what they see us do, not what we tell them. My mother told me never to steal, but I watched my father steal all the time. She told me not to lie, but my father was a compulsive liar. In the end I did not become a thief or liar, but not because I thought it was wrong, per se, but because I saw what it made my father and I didn't want to be like him. With that said, my father was a decent man. He never hurt people (at least not those he thought were innocent), he only had a skewed view of the world, and of course I probably have a skewed view as well, and for that I thank him. You see I don't believe human nature is inherently evil or good, but rather we are born with an empathic connection to others and an understanding of what our basic needs are, This empathic connection instills within us a predisposition for compassion (look at any child who sees an animal or person hurt if you have trouble believing this). The ability to recognize needs can be seen in any healthy baby or toddler, after all they are very happy eating til they are not hungry anymore and then doing what they feel needs to be done, playing (which in fact does need to be done for their healthy development). Somewhere along the line we screw this up and Lao Tzu points out that this is caused by our deviation from Te, specifically our reliance on social conventions and ceremony. In short, we are not born good or evil, we are molded that way by the very society that reviles it, in many cases the more we try to make someone good, the more evil they become. It's not just coincidence, but rather it's our natural response to an unnatural conditioning. We rebel against what we know to be wrong, even if we've been told it is right. My recommendation for anyone interested in raising healthy children, or in returning to their original nature, keenly review what you've been taught and put it the test, does this action harm you or someone else? If not, then why is it wrong or right, good or evil? I think you'll be surprised if you examine enough of your preconceived beliefs just how many don't pass the test. "How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"? What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"? Must I fear what others fear? What abysmal nonsense this is!" Lao Tzu (tr. John C. H. Wu) Aaron

Note- This was originally misposted in the Shamanistic treatise thread... sorry about that. I wanted to weigh in on this discussion, because I think the comments made here are misleading as to the actual meaning of this chapter. First, many people like to apply a mystical connotation to this chapter that does not exist. The return that Lao Tzu mentions, for instance, is not a return to some mystical state that preexisted our birth, but rather a return to our natural state at birth, in other words the state of the infant. Now how do I know this, because I don't take one chapter and decide it's meaning without looking at other chapters to compare it to. Lao Tzu says that the Tao cannot be spoken of, nor described, yet we can understand the process of Tao by looking at nature (the Mother as he calls it). By examining those things that come from the mother we can understand the PROCESS of Tao, but not define or explain Tao itself. Why did Lao Tzu do this, rather than explain how everything began? Well it's simple and he actually tells us why, because the beginning is not so important as the present. Lao Tzu emphasized a need to stay in the present and not reflect on the past. The past is done, it's dust and it's over, but the present is here and now, it's the only thing we can effect with our actions, so in Lao Tzu's view reflecting on hypotheticals that could never be proved was useless, it was much more important to reflect on what was here and now and could be proven. The return that Lao Tzu mentions was a return to our original nature, the nature we were born with, the state of the infant. It's simply a recognition of his other teachings, and the simplest way to explain this is by reviewing the Three Treasures, which are Compassion, Frugality, and Never Striving to be First in the World. To simplify this even more it simply means, being kind to others, appreciating what we need, and not competing with others needlessly. Nothing really mystical about it, except that it requires a great deal of introspection to come to grasp these notions again, since much of our life is spent learning the opposite. Lao Tzu said that the perfect village was one where the villagers in one village could hear the rooster crow in the other without knowing what they were doing. So in a perfect world we would not worry so much how other people practiced, but rather what we were doing ourselves. Of course this isn't a perfect world, so the message I tend to offer people is that the truth is within them, that everything else is extraneous. Aaron

posted a reply in the wrong thread... moved to the right one, but I will keep this one here since, ironically it is still a valid response to the quote by Deci Belle I wanted to weigh in on this discussion, because I think the comments made here are misleading as to the actual meaning of this chapter (Note- I am referring to chapter 16 of the Tao Te Ching, but in the context of this quote, it could very much be the entire interpretation of the Tao Te Ching). First, many people like to apply a mystical connotation to this chapter that does not exist. The return that Lao Tzu mentions, for instance, is not a return to some mystical state that preexisted our birth, but rather a return to our natural state at birth, in other words the state of the infant. Now how do I know this, because I don't take one chapter and decide it's meaning without looking at other chapters to compare it to. Lao Tzu says that the Tao cannot be spoken of, nor described, yet we can understand the process of Tao by looking at nature (the Mother as he calls it). By examining those things that come from the mother we can understand the PROCESS of Tao, but not define or explain Tao itself. Why did Lao Tzu do this, rather than explain how everything began? Well it's simple and he actually tells us why, because the beginning is not so important as the present. Lao Tzu emphasized a need to stay in the present and not reflect on the past. The past is done, it's dust and it's over, but the present is here and now, it's the only thing we can effect with our actions, so in Lao Tzu's view reflecting on hypotheticals that could never be proved was useless, it was much more important to reflect on what was here and now and could be proven. The return that Lao Tzu mentions was a return to our original nature, the nature we were born with, the state of the infant. It's simply a recognition of his other teachings, and the simplest way to explain this is by reviewing the Three Treasures, which are Compassion, Frugality, and Never Striving to be First in the World. To simplify this even more it simply means, being kind to others, appreciating what we need, and not competing with others needlessly. Nothing really mystical about it, except that it requires a great deal of introspection to come to grasp these notions again, since much of our life is spent learning the opposite. Lao Tzu said that the perfect village was one where the villagers in one village could hear the rooster crow in the other without knowing what they were doing. So in a perfect world we would not worry so much how other people practiced, but rather what we were doing ourselves. Of course this isn't a perfect world, so the message I tend to offer people is that the truth is within them, that everything else is extraneous. Aaron

With all the other threads regarding religion, homophobia, etc. I thought it might be a good time to bump this thread, since I think the key to solving a lot of these issues lies within Moral Relativity. Aaron

Watch this video, it's just a few minutes long, but it's something we all need to learn about. For those too lazy to watch, or just aren't able, here's the skinny. The International Telecommunications Union will meet in December to decide whether or not to increase their control over the internet. If they succeed then every site on the web will be required to pay them to be hosted. Also they are lobbying for more control over the monitoring of traffic on the internet. Your e-mail, personal messages, the sites you visit, can and will be tracked. The countries lobbying the hardest for the passing of this initiative are the ones that already are cracking down on freedom of speech, Russia, China, and Iran. We owe it to ourselves and our children to be aware and to tell our government that we wont stand for it... with that said, here's the video. Aaron

No point in continuing this thread. Apparently questioning something that's accepted by the majority as fact is frowned upon. Let this be a lesson to us all that we need to accept things blindly and not stir waves, lest we fall into the category of rabble rouser and "whinger".

Honestly there was no offense. You are quite civil compared to many of the people I run to around here. I'm glad I was able to clarify the meaning and your teacher is right, practice is much more important. Of course that doesn't mean you can't read, just remember to compare it's value to practice. Aaron

Henricks is the next best translation. John C. H. Wu is considered the best by a large number of people, especially academics. It's my favorite and it's been my go-to translation for over 20 years now. It was the second translation I ever read, Stephen Mitchell being the first (run from that one as fast as you can.) Aaron