Aaron

I agree, but I would make the exception that people should enjoy life by doing what they want when they're young, if that mean studying so be it. don't wait til you're old to regret those things you haven't done. Aaron

there's no such thing as taoism, except for what certain people decide to define it as. If you want to learn about the actual tao then you should read the tao te ching and take what it says with a grain of salt. Lao Tzu (the real one that is) wanted people to examine what he said objectively and apply it as they saw fit, not necessarily as he saw fit. To the imitator Lao Tzu, I'm assuming you figured out your ban has been lifted and have come back to enlighten us again. I think that within the next week you'll probably be banned again, so don't be surprised, especially with the particular methods you use to discuss these things. Aaron

Sunlover (or do you prefer Tulku?), Japan is about the least spiritual country on the face of the Earth right now. Korea and Japan produce more porn than every other country on the face of the Earth combined. In Japan they had to start running special trains and buses for women in order to stop the overwhelming incidents of rape and fondling on their rapid transit systems. Did I mention that during Rape of Nanking the Shinto and Buddhist priests you so love actually told the soldiers that it was their duty to rape and kill the Chinese because they were no better than dogs? Many monks left the monastery to fight in the wars and help with the raping and killing. (Hmm... now that I think about it, with all your previous misogynist comments, maybe that's why you like them so much?) Anyways there are very few pious Shinto and Buddhists in Japan anymore. Those boy's that go to join the monasteries these days, aren't the best and brightest, but more often than not, the bottom of the barrel. They couldn't make it into High School, so their parents sent them to the monastery. You've got some really juvenile and disturbing ways of viewing things. You might want to go see a doctor and talk about these issues. You're obviously incapable of separating reality from fact, or at the very least from your own obsessions. Aaron edit- You should really count your lucky stars, because you're not fooling anyone about who you really are. I'm sure the mods know, but for some reason they choose to ignore it. Perhaps your constant grabs for attention and hate mongering bring in a good deal of revenue for the site? Who knows.

Sinfest, it could be because it's a nice gimic that keeps people coming back. Hey you can end all your suffering, PROBABLY not in this life, but surely the next. Just give us your money, kids, and utter devotion, then you'll see, that wheel of kharma/dharma will make you clean as snow. It's the same old schtick, just an eastern flavor. You probably don't understand why they fall for this, because unlike them you don't see anything wrong with the world. Maybe you have an understanding that suffering is natural and that without suffering there could be no pleasure. Maybe you don't fall for the sin and righteousness bullshit either. In the end my question is if they want to be zombies without any emotion, then why not just find a drug that induces a coma? I mean that's the ultimate escape from attachments if you ask me. Well probably because the monks don't make no money if everyone is in a coma! LOL! Aaron

I think the wishful thinking is on the part of those who don't want to accept that it is a moral treatise. They want to be able to believe that they can do anything so long as it's 'from the tao'. Want to cheat on your wife? Well that's alright so long as it's from the Tao. Want to sell drugs to five year olds? Well that's alright so long as it's from the Tao. It's all about justifying their own behavior. The one thing I get a kick out of is those people who want to justify their own behavior by attributing it to Taoism, yet if they've read the Tao Te Ching, then they'd understand that there are good and bad men, that there is a right and wrong way to behave, and that there are valued character traits as well as one's that aren't valued. The three treasures come to mind. In the end if your looking for a justification for living life as you see fit, with no regard for others, well you may want to look elsewhere, because I know of no religion that advocates this. Even Satanism warns that if you do decide to harm someone else, expect that harm to be reciprocated. In the end any organized religion or philosophy requires that you respect others in a moral way, in order for it to succeed, so trying to find one that will allow you to do what you wish is going to be extremely hard. Aaron

This is where you are significantly off base. In moral relativism it isn't the behavior that's important, but the meaning behind the behavior. Two different cultures could advocate cremating one's parents, to someone who practices moral relativism, the important thing is not cremation, but the reason behind the cremation, the why. Even more important is to attempt to view this reason, not within the confines of one's own moral lens, but preferably from within the society's own social construct. The way one does this is by omitting right and wrong from their examination and instead just examining the motivations. So in that sense you are right, it very much is about objectivity. Anyways, don't be too hard on yourself, you were 20% right, you just missed the major crux. Aaron

I'm not sure if the TTC is against codified morality, so much as it is ceremony and pomp, i.e. something that isn't sincere. Much of morality it sincere, in fact it's ingrained in us as children, this is the reason we feel shame when we do something we perceive to be wrong. I advocate ethical behavior by following one simple rule, do no harm to yourself or others. The problem of course is that it's not always simple what constitutes harm, so this still requires a bit of work on the part of the thinker. In the end I think Lao Tzu was advocating this too, that instead of accepting things as they are, that we question what's going on, make our choices for ourselves. Of course that doesn't mean that he didn't advocate "right" behavior, or point out "wrong" behavior. The TTC, if one is willing to look at it closely, is rife with morality. In fact it is a moral text, not just in many ways, but in purpose. Aaron

This is a common occurrence when you first start meditating. The trick is to learn to let your thoughts come and go, in other words address them (ignoring rarely works) and then let it pass. Silencing the mind in the first few years of meditation is difficult. You're lucky to get a good few minutes within the first three months. To expect to be able to achieve this state without rigorous practice is setting yourself up for failure. The trick is to just keep meditating and appreciate the benefits you do receive from meditation. After awhile you can maintain a period of silence, then realize that it wasn't really as silent as you thought it was, then reach a deeper level, and so it goes. The key is to appreciate what you have achieved, rather than focus on what you haven't. Aaron

Good point. Wikipedia does a good job of defining these things, at the very least it's in line with what Luke said in his book, so I will use their definitions... Morality... is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. (Keep in mind though that when I talk about ethics, and I will presume Grandmaster P does as well, I use the definition that Richard Paul and Linda Elder use which is "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".) A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. (Also keep in mind that this gets fairly touchy within the confines of Taoism, because Lao Tzu alludes to two different types of virtue, High Virtue (refered to as Te) and low virtue (also referred to as te but with a little t). High Virtue stems from Tao and is an action that stems not from a knowledge of right or wrong, but a harmonious action with the environment. The problem that arises is when we place a moral quality upon that action. Low virtue is not spontaneous, but rather an action that is done based on one's knowledge of right and wrong (their morality). I hope that helps to clarify things, but in all honestly it might just complicate them. If you disagree with any of these feel free to elaborate so we can understand exactly what we're discussing. As for Moral Relativity (Stosh I hope you're reading this too, because you were way off base) it is not a judgement of the moral value of another culture or set of moral values, but rather the understanding that one cannot honestly understand another culture without some form of bias, in particular comparing that culture or moral value with your own, even if this is most commonly subconsciously done, because morality is always based on one's own perspective and experiences. In a practical sense Moral Relativity is tool one uses to examine morality as scientifically as possible, attempting to rid one's self of preconceived notions of morality in order to understand the underlying methodology and practice of that morality. Anyways, I'm heading out of town tomorrow and wont be back until Friday night, so I hope to hear some input regarding this topic, which I think is a valuable one, by then, if not, that's fine as well. Aaron

Hello Grandmaster P, I'm sorry it took so long to reply, perhaps you're not following this thread anymore, if so that's fine, but I thought the right (and moral) thing to do, would be to respond to your post. You are right (there's that word again), we need a common definition when we talk about these things, so I will lay one out and if someone disagrees, feel free to correct me. For the purposes of this discussion I will use the definition provided by wikipedia which is essentially the same given in Luke's book, which states "Morality... is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong)." In this sense I think the Tao Te Ching is very much a moral text, since the vast majority of the text involves understanding our intentions, decisions, and actions and in so doing recognizing whether they are good or bad. With that said, I feel that Lao Tzu attempted to institute a form of Moral Relavitism, in that he reminds us to question morality, to not take things at face value, and to look beyond pomp, ceremony, and mores and instead evaluate our actions based on their own merits, rather than a codified value. Yet in so doing Lao Tzu was also instituting a school of thought that essentially dictated what was a right action and what was wrong. Chapter 20 is perhaps the greatest example of this and I will quote it for context... HAVE done with learning, And you will have no more vexation. 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! All men are joyous and beaming, As though feasting upon a sacrificial ox, As though mounting the Spring Terrace; I alone am placid and give no sign, Like a babe which has not yet smiled. I alone am forlorn as one who has no home to retum to. All men have enough and to spare: I alone appear to possess nothing. What a fool I am! What a muddled mind I have! All men are bright, bright: I alone am dim, dim. All men are sharp, sharp: I alone am mum, mum! Bland like the ocean, Aimless like the wafting gale. All men settle down in their grooves: I alone am stubborn and remain outside. But wherein I am most different from others is In knowing to take sustenance from my Mother! (tr. John C. H. Wu) As mentioned earlier Lao Tzu implores people to think for themselves, rather than just accept things because someone has told them to do so, but in so doing he then goes on to compare the wrong actions of society with his own right actions. In this chapter he is clearly stating that there is right and wrong, and furthermore, this right and wrong was not an ethical treatise, but rather a moral one, based on his own beliefs. Now the problem we may have is that we tend to believe that morality stems from religious conventions, but as you and I both know that's no so, it also stems from other things, such as social and cultural conventions. In this example Lao Tzu uses the social conventions of society as a mirror for what he believes should be the proper way of thinking and believing, hence he is presenting his own very moral code. So, to keep things short, that's my view. I'd be happy to hear your comments regarding this and I get the feeling that you disagree and that's fine. One thing I've learned from reading Luke's "Moral Relativity" is that we cannot really escape morality, the best we can do is look at it objectively and understand the nature of it. Aaron

And how does this relate to the problem of believing one's own morality is superior to others? I wouldn't say I'm churning with logic. I know very little about philosophy, other than Taoism and Buddhism and a bit about Vedanta. Western philosophy was never my bag, but I find the idea of Moral Relativity, not only relevant but also fascinating, since the question of morality is one of the main issues a western practitioner seems to have to come terms with when he starts studying the Eastern philosophies. Aaron

Hmm... but what if you are the gutter dog? I think what you're failing to see is that your morality is only as precious to you as the gutter dog's is to him. If we continue to work along the lines of moral superiority, then how will we ever evolve out of the imperialistic state we are in now? My morality is not worth anything, it is only a construct of the mind. Morality is only alive and well because of the perspective we've lived, but the life it lives is merely an illusion, rather than being a living thing, it is a tool we use to justify our actions. So, if I say the Nazi morality was no worse than the American, then that would be true, for to the Nazi the American morality is immoral and to the American the Nazi is at immoral. Morality is the framework in which we trap compassion and peace, keep it confined to our own liking. It is only when we can realize that our morality is no more superior to theirs that we can then see the fallacy that lies within it. Morality is a trap. Of course that's what the Tao Te Ching is teaching as well, but it also states the actions one should take and the value of virtue. The problem is that so long as virtue is tied to morality it fails, that's why high virtue is held in high esteem and low virtue is seen as the first steps towards the downfall of man. Of course that's another topic entirely, which we've touched on. The virtue I talk about is the low virtue, which is also talked about in the Tao Te Ching. Failing High Virtue we resort to Low Virtue, and in so doing we allow ourselves to become trapped within the confines of morality. Now we come to Xie Jie's comment... In this sense Xie Jie is right, however one cannot escape the various passages within the Tao Te Ching that direct us to right and wrong action, these passages are what I refer to when I talk about Morality. I believe Lao Tzu believed the path back to High Virtue was gained through work, and that in order to return to high virtue one must be virtuous. Is not the Good Man the Teacher of bad men and should not bad hold the Good men in high esteem? Is that not a moral tale if you've ever heard one? No sarcasm here, just a valid question. Aaron

Moral relativity doesn't say that we can (or should) have a common morality, in fact it's founding ideas are based on the notion that it's impossible to do so, rather it states we should respect each person's ideals and understand that the only thing that separates our own ideals from another's is our own unique perspective. As I mentioned in the last paragraph, I am advocating doing away with morality in lieu of ethics, so in that regard I am in agreement with you. In regards to the TTC being amoral, that is hogwash. I'm surprised you missed that part of the text, because honestly it is staring anyone who reads it in the face. Virtue is morality, just as the good man is a moral man. Lao Tzu uses the sage as an example and though he doesn't tell us, he certainly advocates their behavior as being superior to others and in so doing he is advocating a morality. Again, virtue cannot be separated from morality, however he did believe that high virtue stemmed, not from human emotion, but rather the Tao itself, but again, I would expect that he would see that as a form of morality as well. Aaron

Hmm... this is funny, I had a conversation regarding this topic with a friend earlier and the Nazis also came up. Now I would suggest that, as Luke mentions in his book, we are much more amenable to accept another cultures diversity when it is small and inconsequential, but it is much harder for us to do so when it affects us directly. Now with that said, you're misinterpreting tolerance, in that you seem to think it means accepting violence towards you or others, when that is a ridiculous notion, rather you accept that your own MORAL ideas are no more superior to another person's than one dog's bone is to another. In regards to Lao Tzu being amoral, I'll touch base on that when I respond to Grandmaster P. Aaron

This is a ridiculous topic. Can we please just let this die. It's time we talked about important things, rather than stroke the egos of the mentally disturbed. Aaron

I will tell you a story of a little boy who kept his hands wrenched so tightly together, his heart beating each beat with a longing, like the thump of a drum. Thump! Thump! He came to his mother, his eyes a glimmer with desire. He touched her and she recoiled. He shrank back, afraid, not knowing what he had done wrong. He spoke to her, but she would not listen, not really listen, rather she always found a flaw in what he said. But still he tried, for any boy needs the love of his mother and he was just like any boy. He watched his mother with his father and he realized she was the same with him. She led him to love through traps, tricks, those things she made him do, belittling him and only when he felt small and worthless would she take him in her arms and say, "I love you." So the boy sat in her lap, his heart beat thumping, savoring this moment, looking up at her, wishing it would not end, but it did. He kept thinking that it would change, not really knowing what it was, yet it never did. Over and over the boy came to her, shameful and wanting, just desiring to feel her arms wrapped around him, holding him tightly, her soft kiss upon his forehead, to smell that sweet smell of soap and shampoo. And when she did hold him in her arms, he regretted that he wanted her to hold him, for each time she showed him love he lost a bit of himself. Now I will tell you the story of that boy, almost a man. He looks at the women around him and sees his mother, sees all the things she did not do for him, but he wanted her to do. Almost a man, he knows the darker things in life, but he cannot separate the desires he had, an innocent longing for a mother's embrace, from the longing he has for the woman he passes on the street. Each woman he sees is his mother. He is certain that there was nothing different about his mother, if that was so, does that not mean there was something different about him and even with his father? The young man seethes with jealousy when he sees a woman and man together. He seethes when he sees a mother holding her son's hand, the happiness they share is like a knife in his mind. No, they are all the same. To want what he has had, it seems unfathomable. He sees a family as a curse, a mother as a monster, and a father as a weakling. However, if this young man could just rub his eyes, clear away the years of sleep from his soul, perhaps he could see the world awake and real around him. He could see that what he had was a dream, not the real world. That his dream was not the dream of the waking, but the sleeping boy inside himself. Then, only then, could he awaken to find someone, not the mother that lives in his dream, but the mother he has always wanted and that mother could be the mother of his children, the mother who would love his son like he wanted to be loved. He could hold her tightly and feel what he wanted to feel, but is so afraid to feel now. Wake up child! You're dreaming! Look around you and let yourself see the beauty the world holds. This life is not the life you must live, but a life you can live. The pain within is not the pain you must hold onto, but something that can be given up. Let it go and let yourself feel the beauty this world has to offer. Aaron

Oh man. It seems to me that the only people who don't realize who Sunlover is are the members of the moderator staff. Have you thought about adding a clause to the ToS stating you reserve the right to ban any member that uses a proxy server? This means if someone is avoiding the ban by using a proxy you can still ban them, but if they're using it to get around the great firewall of China they can still make it here. My guess is that you can't stop Sunlover because he's using services that mask his IP. Rather than admit this, perhaps it's easier just to deny that he is who he is and ignore it til the site almost immolates again, then take action. Well I hope you have a plan, because we know Tulku's M.O. and from experience it never ends well. Lets just hope before it ends this time, we don't see any more pictures of corpses. Well human corpses, we've already seen the animal torture video. Aaron

Hello Deci Belle, I disagree with almost everything you said, but I wont quibble, I think I made my point clearly the first time. One point I wanted to address, which is one of the reasons I abhor religions, Buddhism included, is the notion that there is something wrong with us. You said the 'problem of having a self', but I don't see that being the problem at all. It's just an excuse that's used to encourage people to practice Buddhism. "Oh I know you're sad, but that's because you haven't been able to see through the illusion of self." Yeah, well I'm sure that makes sense to someone who can't understand that being sad really isn't a problem, but a natural reaction caused by our emotions. Suffering isn't the cause of a dharmic or karmic cycle, it's a natural experience that teaches us how to interact with the world. If we do something that hurts someone else's feelings and they in turn hurt ours, that's natural and NORMAL. If someone dies and we feel sad, that's because we loved that person and feel their loss. Feeling loss is normal. It's what makes the mother go look for her lost child, the father stand up to bandits to defend his family, and the son check in on their elderly mother to make sure she's okay. See the picture there? Without a self, what are we? Really what are we? I think therefore I am. Self is tied to our recognition that we exist within this world, without that, what do we have? The problem of self, is the problem of selfishness. I would say selfishness is having a doctrine that forbids their monks from having contact with their relatives. I would say selfishness is a religion that allows fathers to abandon their children for 'enlightenment'. I would say selfishness is a religion that takes in children and brainwashes them, rather than allows them to come to their own decision when they are old enough to do so. Hmm... i guess karma isn't the only problem i see in Buddhism (and Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and the list goes on). My main point is that MOST of the harm caused in the world today is done under the guise of morality, most often the morality endorsed by the nations religion. And for those who bring up Communism, that's actually a religion as well. Aaron

I agree. It's not a teacher's place to preach or convert their students. I wasn't advocating that, rather I was advocating teaching critical analysis. Aaron

Leave it to Tulku to make vegetarianism look fascist. I was a vegetarian from the age of twenty to twenty eight, can't remember when I actually started to eat meat or the reason why, but I can say that I don't have regrets and the videos in this thread don't shake my notion that eating meat is natural for humans (after all we do have canines). Anyways the video post was disturbing and had no warning about its content, I would suggest taking it down, unless you think it's appropriate for younger viewers, especially without such a warning. Aaron Edit- Tulku, every one of your posts just exposes more of the darkness you're keeping bottled up. I pray that if you do feel the impulse to harm others, and I fear you do, that you seek help before you harm someone. I pray the mods will take your illness seriously and contact the local authorities where you live, because you are in need of help. I have no doubt that you are a threat to others and a danger to yourself, sadly there's nothing I can do about it.

I can't freaking believe this. Is anyone going to do anything to stop Tulku? Is there any doubt it's him? If not, is there any reason why "Sunlover's" comments in his previous threads, as well as this one haven't warranted banning? obviously he is a threat to others, he's actually said he will tear the faces off people. I really hope that the mods get serious about this. I'm certain that you are within your right, according to the terms of service to ban or suspend this individual if you have good reason to believe he is the same person you have banned previously. I hope you'll ban him and I also hope you'll track his IP and let the local authorities know what he's been saying so hopefully he can get the help he needs. Aaron

But isn't worth it if just one of those 'indolent' little ingrates appreciates what you've done for them. One of my fondest school memories was when I was in fourth grade and my class went on a field trip to a marsh. While walking along the trail I happened upon a frog sitting by the river. I watched it for just a moment before the noise from the other kids scared it away. For lunch we ate peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and celery sticks with cream cheese and olives. The ice had melted in the cooler so the little cartons of milk were warm. It was such a nice break from the classroom. Kids rarely express their appreciation, but I'm sure at least one of those rugamuts did appreciate the effort. Aaron edit- Hehehe... indolent... it's nice to see someone using the English language.

Hello Sam, I am working towards getting my certification to teach middle school or high school English. What I've found studying education is that it's not so much to teach children how to think for themselves, but rather to teach them what they should be thinking. Aristotle's 'Ethics' is an excellent example, because it's actually advocating this goal orientated way of thinking. In short we need kids to grow up and be well-behaved conformists that wont question capitalism or whether or not they're actually living in a democracy, or instead a republic. School indoctrinates more often than not, rather than educates. You're right to feel this way, my suggestion, encourage your students to question what's being taught. Teach them to recognize what other people believe the right answer is, but make sure they express it in their own words and can actually support that assumption. Don't accept blind quotations and citations from your students, require them to actually think about what's going on and defend their arguments. Make sure that they understand that just because someone says something is right, doesn't make it so. I feel for you, I really do. I am struggling with many of the same doubts you are having. I will still teach, because I want to be one of the teachers that encourages kids to think for themselves. I hope things work out for you. Don't give up, what you're doing is beneficial to your students. Remember they don't need emptiness, so much as someone who is willing to be that candle in the darkness. Aaron

Karma is only an escape from reality. Buddhists use it in lieu of sin in order to advocate morality. In other words they say you've accrued all of this negative karma because of past lives and only by being good in this life can you be rid of it. If you believe that, well I've got one for you, why not just say you were born in sin and in order to be free of it you must become saved (or enlightened) and live a moral good life (according to what is taught to be moral and good, not necessarily beneficial or compassionate) in order to stop the dharma cycle (go to heaven). Every religion has this. It's the easiest and best way to keep people behaving the way the religious teachers want them to. You can't have people in an organized religion thinking and doing whatever they want, otherwise how will they know they should donate money or give their children to the monasteries to make sure that the religion carries on and doesn't die because people realized that none of it was actually real, but rather just a means to an end? Stop worrying about your karma and begin worrying about how your actions effect others. Don't do things because they are moral or good, but rather view each action you take and how those actions help or harm others. Allow compassion to be your guiding force and you will never need to worry about sin or karma, because you will see that no human being is born with flaws, we are all born with the capacity for kindness or cruelty and only the lessons we learn in this life lead us towards one or the other. Take responsibility for yourself, worry less about other peoples actions and you will find things tend to work out in the end. If your mother asks you to come home at a certain time, but you don't want to, which is the beneficial thing to do, come home so she doesn't worry, or do what you want to? Questions, questions, everywhere. I really wish people would take responsibility for what happening in their lives, rather than look for excuses as to why they aren't the way they want. More often than not, if you look at what's happening, the person to blame isn't someone else, but yourself. Act in a beneficial way and other people benefit. Act selfishly and they, more often than not, don't. Aaron

In the beginning you're lucky to find complete silence one to two minutes a month. Awareness without thought (consciousness) is impossible, so what I am talking about isn't awareness, but stilling or silencing your mind. I'm not sure where you got the idea that you could be aware and not actually think. I'm not sure how someone can even walk around and be able to do that. Again, for a better explanation of what Empty Mind meditation actually is, read my guide in my personal practice thread. It will help you to understand the misconceptions about this form of meditation, as well as how I have practiced it for over 20 years now. Aaron