Aaron

I'm responding to the sentiment that the Sage is believed to be apathetic to the world at large. I think this is grossly misunderstood and some of this misunderstanding comes from a misunderstanding of from the first four lines from chapter 5 of the Tao Te Ching which follows (Tr. by John C. H. Wu) Heaven-and-Earth is not sentimental; It treats all things as straw-dogs. The Sage is not sentimental; He treats all his people as straw-dogs. To understand what's going on here, we must first be able to take this passage into context. First the Sage being referred to is a ruler, not the run of the mill sage being talked about in other sections. It is also pointing out that the Sage treats all people without sentimentality, not because he is devoid of emotion, but rather that in order to be just he must make his decisions based on what is the correct action to take. In this sense it doesn't mean that the Sage doesn't experience emotions or act on emotions at times, but that his emotions do not rule him. For those who wonder about the straw-dog, well that's just a metaphor for life. Don't mourn those who pass, because they have served their purpose and mourning them is a waste of time. This is a reminder to the ruler to stay on track, to do what they know is beneficial and helpful to his people and not to allow the deaths of his subjects to deter him from continuing to do so. Aaron

Recently I started a thread called "Friend me please!" I will admit to you that I had an ulterior motive with that post, and not to get more people to friend me on this site, but rather to make a point that I think many people miss and shouldn't, and because they fail to understand the reasoning behind friendship, they suffer needlessly. Most people read the topic of this thread and immediately started to think of attachments, or emptiness, or the social constructs of friendship, and the list goes on, but how many actually tried to answer the question? If you did what was the answer? (Feel free to comment if you actually did come up with one.) My answer to the question is a resounding, YES! It is absolutely a trap, because the notion of friendship seems to be that we place our personal value upon whether or not our emotional investment in others is reciprocated. We view our own self worth on how other people view us, rather than on our own individual merits. The fact that we value friendship so much is really the first inclination that it is a trap, because it really makes absolutely no sense to think this way and we are really one of the few species on the face of the earth that thinks like this. Before I go on I need to clarify this point, no other species on this planet base their own self worth on how many friends they have. In fact it would be true to say that animals do not have friends at all, they have companions and mates. An animal doesn't develop relationships simply to ease loneliness, but rather they have relationships to provide for themselves and their offspring. The relationship is communal, in that each member that exists within their community has a purpose. That doesn't mean that they don't care for there fellow community members, in fact they care a great deal and will go to great lengths to protect there community, greater lengths than you or I might, in fact their bonds are very strong and the reason for these strong bonds is based on the fact that the relationship isn't founded simply upon reciprocating emotional needs, or to ease loneliness, but for survival itself. Now I can't say that all human beings fail in this regard, for there are many aboriginal tribes that do seem to view community in the same way, but in modern society, especially those societies north of the equator, the notion of community is absent, and rather it is the notion of friendship that seems to dominate the ego landscape. Now I must make a statement here, there is nothing right or wrong about having friendships, I hate the idea of right and wrong, rather I'm saying that it can be harmful to base your own self worth and self image on the notion of friendship. Remember, even though there are a vast number of species that survive within communities, there are almost as many species that live entirely alone, only meeting others infrequently, and in most cases only to procreate. These animals never value their self worth based on whether or not other members of their species like them, in fact they most likely don't even place a value on themselves at all, but rather are satisfied when they are able to provide for their own needs. The problem that many people have today is that they need to have some sort of inflated self worth, It's not enough simply to be or to provide for themselves and their loved ones, they have to be liked and adored, they have to know that other people enjoy their company, that they are worthy of other people's attention. This is poison to the mind and body, because it teaches us that simply being who we are will never be enough. It says that Aaron is not, in and of himself, worthy of living, unless other people value his life. How ridiculous that is! Aaron doesn't need friends and neither do you! (Yes I know I'm talking in the third person and that it's creepy, so I'll stop now.) The fact of the matter is that no one NEEDS to place a value on themselves, that in and of ourselves we are worthy of life simply because we breathe, eat, and think. If we can wake up to the FACT, not idea or notion, but fact, that we are alive and that's enough, then friendship is meaningless. If we can realize that the only thing we NEED to do is provide for ourselves and our family, and that we don't NEED our children to love us, or our mates, but rather we need to ensure that they are taken care of, then much of the pain we suffer, needlessly suffer at that, can be wiped clean. Friendship is a trap, simply because it is a lie. Loneliness is not a calling for friendship, but rather an internal reminder that you are a pack animal and that we are meant to be within a pack. So find your pack, run with your pack, but don't base your self-image on what your pack does for you, but on what you do for your pack. And if you end up being the lone-wolf, so what? You don't NEED a pack, it just makes life a bit easier. The fact of the matter is that we are not born with this mindset, but the lessons we learn, the ceremony and rites of manhood, teach us that we are worthless unless other people value us. What abysmal nonsense is this? If each and every one of us simply live our lives satisfied that we are providing for ourselves and others, then the relationships we do build along the way will be stronger, because they are not based solely on what others have to offer us, but also what we have to offer them. That's enough out of me. I'm sure there are many extra terrestrials out there that will fail to understand what I'm saying, but that's okay, because I'm sure there are thousands more that will get a glimpse of what I'm alluding too, and even if they don't agree with my premise, they can at least, hopefully, see why friendship is a trap. Aaron

All we have is now. The future hasn't arrived and the past is over. I'd have to say there is power in now, but if you are not living in the now, you can never understand that. Aaron

I was in a discussion today with a friend and the topic came up regarding Taoism and Philosophy. The more I hear about other philosophies, the more I see how they are the antithesis of what Lao Tzu was advocating. Lao Tzu said everything we need to know about philosophy in one simple phrase "Be done with knowledge". In this phrase we understand that learning is, in and of itself, a harmful thing, because the vast majority of what we learn leads us away from what is natural and instead instills an artificial sense of mores and values upon us. In my opinion the most important thing we can do as human beings is recognize that morality and virtue, in and of themselves, should never be defined by man, nor the mouths of men, but instead they should be expressed through the subjective experience of each and every one of us. We should not rely on a book or person to tell us what is right or wrong, but rather what our actions do. I use the example of a small boy drowning in a river. If he is close by and all we have to do is walk out and grab a hold of him to save him, but we don't, aren't we just as much to blame for his death, then if we had actually pushed him in the river? My problem with philosophy stems from the twisted idea that so long as we are not participating in a wrong, that somehow that absolves us from blame. We use philosophy to allow us to behave any way we choose too, to find some reason to absolve us from blame. We can say, "that boy was a muslim extremist" or "I was wearing my good clothes and he was poor" or "I was afraid he'd pull me under as well", but none of that erases the fact of what happened, it only absolves our conscience. Lao Tzu understood this and it was one of the reasons he mentioned that religion and philosophy lead us from Te, our natural way of living, and instead cause more harm than good. We need to understand on a personal level that religion and philosophy are not beneficial, especially if they are teaching us to make value judgments on our actions, rather than examine our actions based upon the harm they cause others. The simplest solution to this conundrum is to understand the important of the three jewels, compassion, frugality, and never striving to be first in the world. These should be the simplest things any of us could follow, yet our brains have been wired in such a way by what we've learned through school, church, temples, and the media, that we are caught up in this false need to be first, to have more than others, and to spend, even when we don't have the money to spend. It's this false dichotomy that allows us to wake up every morning and say "nothing is wrong", when what we should be seeing is how little is right, but even then that's not true, because there is nothing right or wrong to begin with, and it is only our own expressed definitions of what is wrong that allows us to continue to fool ourselves into believing this is true. If we can live our lives as compassionate human being, being satisfied with what we need, and not competing with others to have more or be better, then much of the harm that occurs in this world would disappear, however anyone who is of a religious and philosophical bent will tell you this can't be done? Why? Because society is incapable of it? Bah! It's simply because living in a world like this would mean there would be no rich people, that there would be no one telling others how to live, that each and every person could live as they please, so long as it didn't cause harm to others. It's simple, realistic, and possible, but we are convinced that it can never be. I say the first step is waking up and being done with knowledge. Give up Christianity, Hinduism, Socrates, Sartre, Confucius, Buddhism, existentialism, humanism, and nihilism, and instead embrace living life as humans just being. Allow those natural impulses we are all born with to come forth, wash away the bigotry and hatred we've been taught, and just live, so that each of us can return to the perfect state of the child. That is where our hope lies and I hope that we are wise enough to realize it before it's too late. Aaron

You're welcome. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Aaron

Very nice post. Aaron

I think there is a difference between worldly knowledge, learning to cook for instance or wash your clothes, and learning extraneous beliefs such as religion and philosophy, which do little except convolute what could be a simple and peaceful existence. This is what Lao Tzu was talking about. There is nothing harmful with learning a skill or even enjoying a sweet now and again, but if one overindulges it can become harmful, hence the necessity for frugality. Again this can be linked back to the three treasures, compassion (or mercy), frugality, and never striving to be first in the world. None of these requires one to be knowledgeable in philosophy, nor does it require one to pay reverence to a deity, it simply requires us to pay attention to how we interact with the world, so mindfulness is key here. Thanks for pointing that out. Aaron

I'm using water as a metaphor, just as tea was used as a metaphor. What I am saying is that we don't need to seek other things, when we have what we need already. I thought it was clearly said, so I didn't think it needed to be emphasized. In regards to milk, if we're talking about mother's milk, that would be the source of sources, what we drink when we are born because it has all the nutrients, protein, fat, and vitamins we need as infants, but at some point, when we reach a certain age it isn't enough and we start to eat food and drink water. So maybe this is a better analogy. When we are born our mothers have everything we need to feed us. We are content with mother's milk, not seeking anything else out, in the old days it was only when it became inconvenient for the mother that we given other sources of nourishment, even then it didn't completely replace our mother's milk, but rather we were weened from it. Weening is a tough process for most infants, because there is so much emotional and physical satisfaction associated with it. At some point we do get weened and begin to eat like everybody else, but there is always that part of us that remembers. The fact though, is that we can't return to mother's milk, because it only satisfies our needs as infants, however that doesn't mean that we can't return to the state of an infant and recognize the differences between needs and wants. An infant wants what it needs, nothing more. Why do we seem to search out these extraneous things we don't need? Why must we have tea instead of water? If everyone were to have water available to drink at all times, why then must we drink something else? Aaron P.S. Thanks for trying to keep the conversation on topic and not inserting your own private agenda.

Great points. I can see you spent some time reading my OP, thank for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. Aaron

Hmm... you missed the point. No need to explain, just remember you don't NEED tea, it's only a want. Aaron

I think that this story is good in a way, but it also illustrates the problem. First, isn't it better to be satisfied with just water? Why must we brew tea to satisfy our thirsts? There's nothing implicitly wrong with tea, but when we drink it because we're tired of water, then maybe it's a good time to ask why we're tired with water, which is the healthiest thing we can drink. The answer is twofold, one we seek something more because we're not satisfied anymore, water is bland, tasteless, it nourishes us, but has little zest or excitement, and two tea can be made to suit our tastes, quench our thirsts, but also the caffeine will stir our blood, give us a bit of pep and excitement. Also, if we make a tasty tea, well then we can meet people who haven't tasted any tea and convince them to drink our own, which means we will have more tea drinkers and less water drinkers. Eventually everyone drinks the tea they like, but someone decides that tea is sacred and making it improperly is wrong. This group then decides to enforce their own standards on other tea drinkers, but those tea drinkers don't agree and then decide that they will defend their practices. War breaks out and many people die, but neither side is willing to give up what they believe is right, so for centuries the followers bicker, war breaks out sporadically, one side wins, the other bides their time, then revolts, and all for the sake of tea. The truth is that we should have been satisfied with water, seen tea for what it is, pleasing, but not better than what we have. It doesn't mean we can't drink a bit of tea, but it's important to remember that water is the healthiest thing to drink. It may be bland and tasteless, but that is part of it's strength, it is neither this or that, it is pure and the basis for every other drink on the planet. Everything we drink was water at some point, even fruit juice. Stop looking for the perfect drink and just return to water. It will satisfy your needs, never make you delusional or sick, it will wash you, clean you, and satisfy your thirst as it's meant to be satisfied. When we can realize this, then we will no longer need tea. That's not to say we can't have a taste, but we will realize what it is and that's it's not needed, just a transitory desire. Aaron edit- I'm not knocking you on this Stosh. I realize I've been unkind to you in the past and I apologize. I just wanted to express what I saw in the story. Everyone is entitled to drink tea if they want, we can only hope that in the process no one tries to force their tea on others, simply because it has a taste that satisfies their desires and wants. (Remember they don't need it, only want it.)

Well I apologize. I've decided to put the source of the drama on ignore (not me per se, though I do that every once in awhile). I just get a bit pissed because it seems like every thread ET joins goes off track because he feels the need to espouse his own brand of "truth". I know I should be more compassionate towards him, but he seems like a bully at times, passive aggressive, but still, and that sets me off. Anyways, I'm done with him and I am sorry. Aaron

I'm not sure how what I wrote scarred you. If you examine carefully Lao Tzu wasn't the only one advocating being done with knowledge, Buddha and Vendanta do the same thing. At some point we realize that true spirituality doesn't lie in the ceremony, but in being able to be done with it and all the needless thoughts and rationalizations and just realizing what is really there. Sitting in stillness is all about letting go of preconceptions and allowing your experience to guide you to the truth. Aaron

You hit the nail on the head... well said. Stosh, thanks, I'm glad you liked it. Sinansencer, that's what I was trying to do, but I think many people didn't read the entire post and jumped to conclusions. Zanshin, It's great that you realized this. Many people go through their entire life thinking somethings wrong with them, and that's really who I was writing this for. Aaron

Don't take it personally, I'm easily insulted. Aaron

Oh Gosh, another post? How many have you made today? By the way I understand what you're saying, nothing complex or illuminating about it. You're trying to push your religious beliefs on others. I say, there is no proof God exists, you say, God exists and you just don't understand that's why you don't believe. You're a brick wall with a speaker playing the same song over and over as loud as you can. Aaron

Hello Marius Tudor, I would suggest that if you're really interested in exploring other ideas and not just sharing your own beliefs in the attempt to convert others that you might want to read the Tao Te Ching. It actually addresses the notion of religion and ceremony, perhaps the best chapter to read is 38 (as translated by John C. H. Wu) which follows... 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. If you read this chapter you begin to understand that ceremony, such as the "sign of the cross", "The Lord's Prayer", communion, and numerous other traditions within Orthodox and Catholic religions are in fact mere husks of faith, since they instill nothing other than words and actions to what should be a deep experience founded upon one's own experience, one that can only be gained through introspection and an understanding of the world around them. I will take it even one step further and wager that if one practices this introspection that their notion of God will begin to unravel, for they will understand that God is everything and as such we are every bit as much God as God is us. Aaron

Again, if you read my entire post you would've found that I was not denigrating relationships, but the notion of friendships as a means of developing self worth. Aaron

This is a very Buddhist concept and if you had read my entire post, you would've found I alluded to the same thing. Aaron

Hello snowmonki, No worries, read the entire post before you comment next time and perhaps you'll realize that my view on friendship are different. Why do I need to awaken? You're assuming I'm asleep, which is a pretentious idea many spiritual people seem to have in regards to the infidels not awakened to their own brand of spirituality. The more time I spend on this forum, the more I see how ingrained people are in their own spiritual paths, their inability and unwillingness to question their own beliefs, despite the fact those very beliefs are the cause of much of the grief in the world, especially when it comes to the notion of friendship and family. Aaron

I'm not posting twenty times a day telling people that I have the truth and that they are hopelessly lost. I am making an argument and allowing others to come to their own conclusions. You'll notice I don't hop around from thread to thread going "look at me! Look at me!" Nor do I say, I have the absolute truth! I say, this is how I view it, my opinion. I think everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, but that beliefs are the root of much of our problems, ET being my prime example of this. Take this into consideration, I would almost guarantee that he's posted twice as much in the last two months as the second leading poster on this board has. If you think I'm doing something wrong, that's fine, I wont argue that point with you, but remember I don't believe in right and wrong, nor do I believe compassion is allowing a child to rampage through a china shop. Sometimes you have to take a firm grip and tell them they're misbehaving. Aaron

What the hell are you even saying? I think a lot of the problem is that English is obviously not your native language. Have you thought that perhaps you're misunderstanding what other people are saying? Also, you're really pumping along with comments. I'd wager you have the most comments per day of any member this year. Keep up the good work and keep talking, every word you say helps to prove how little you know. Aaron

My words are simple, yet no one seems to understand. I mean really, you guys missed the mark here. This isn't about friendship, but the reliance on others for self worth. Compassion and kindness are necessary if you wish to find peace and harmony in your life, yet friendships aren't. One can walk through the world without making a single "friend" and still have peace and harmony. My point, simplified and spelled out, since I don't think many people have the attention span to read more than a minute or two of text is, don't allow your self-image to be a reflection of how others view you, but rather how you are. Don't rely on others approval in order to feel worthwhile, rely on your own actions. If we are kind and compassionate, I think people will naturally gravitate towards us without having to seek out anyone, so my point WASN'T THAT WE SHOULDN'T MAKE FRIENDS, but that we shouldn't fall into the trap of believing friendships defined our own self-worth. Remember these words and then think of why you feel the way you do about friendship "No one likes you, why don't you just go kill yourself." Common phrase from teenage bullies. Aaron

Your lessons on compassion are clearly shown here. Please Mr Sage, continue to teach us through your example. Aaron

Hi GrandmasterP, Compassion isn't something you should have to do, it should flow freely and does when we are young. As we grow older and are taught "life lessons" we tend to grow away from instinctual compassion and more towards logic, reasoning, and rationalization. My opinion is that before we can truly begin to experience compassion again, we need to get rid of all those blockages, allow compassion to come from us, not because of right or wrong, but an empathic connection we share with others. With that said, I do try to express as much compassion as I can, but in the same way, if I see something harmful being said to others, would I be compassionate if I simply remained quiet? I understand that you're comments regarding reading the TTC like a Christian are meant to diminish my own views by comparing them to what many view as a negative practice, but it's not in actuality the truth, in fact I read the TTC with an open mind, but I don't discard what it teaches simply because it contradicts my own personal views of how the world should be. I'm not one that believes it advocates amorality or gives people just cause to do whatever they want, in fact the vast majority of the TTC has to do with Te, or virtue, in other words, it is giving us a road map of how we should conduct our lives. Since the vast majority of people that come to Taoism, were former Christians, they are often filled with mixed emotions regarding the ideas of sin and good and evil, and because of this they will consciously ignore those parts of the TTC that encourage us to be compassionate, kind, and caring, even to those we might not consider worthy of these traits. The difference though, is that the TTC does not guarantee salvation if one does these things, rather it says that we will begin to live a life that is in harmony with those around us. My example again is the three jewels, if we can be compassionate, frugal, and never strive to be first in the world, then we can understand what Lao Tzu means when he says that the sage places himself last, and by doing so is placed first by the people. We can also understand why the man who is willing to sacrifice his life for the sake of the world, is the only man worthy of ruling it. It is because a man is willing to sacrifice himself, that others can identify the compassion he has towards them, the love per se, and in so doing reciprocate those feelings towards him, because in their hearts the people can trust this man because they know he cares about them. Anyways, I could go on, but I'll leave it there. Each of us can have our own opinion, but that doesn't necessarily mean those opinions will benefit others, the question is whether we sit idly by while others foster hate and discord, or whether we stand up and do something about it. Aaron