Aaron

Did I say that I like Jackie Chan yet? Doesn't he seem like a genuinely nice guy? I don't think I've ever seen an interview of him where he isn't smiling. Must be doing something right, of course I'm sure all the money doesn't hurt either. Aaron

Did you ask yourself why you refer to the clerk as a girl and the man as a male person? You're attributing human attributes to the girl, but not to the man. That might be something you could examine. For me it seems like you view woman as people and men as objects. If you're raising a son or sons, I can't remember which, if you have this kind of bias, they'll know and it will effect them in the long run. I'm not pointing this out to put you on the spot, but rather to make you aware of an observation. Aaron

I'm ignoring you because you only say stuff that makes absolutely no sense and you seem to want people to pay attention to you. I wish you well, but I don't think interacting with you is going to help, rather it will only exacerbate your condition. Aaron

Well obviously it was a miracle then... good to know people can still be miraculously cured of sexual addiction and physical ailments simply by chanting a mantra. Also if it was a miracle, then it stands to reason time isn't bound by it, so of course he can watch two videos that are over 21 minutes long, chant a mantra, be cured, and still type a reply that would take a normal person 2-5 minutes in under twenty minutes. Hallelujah. Aaron

I wouldn't suggest running at anyone with a knife... that's considered a felony in most countries. Anyways, I think that the idea of enlightenment has greater appeal to most people than the actuality. If people actually understood the exact nature of non-duality, I don't think they'd aspire to it, especially not while they are still enjoying their normal lives. Non-duality does change you, in that you are very much an observer after that, even though you are still you. It's sometimes like you're watching a movie and deciding how things go. I deal with people all the time that claim to be enlightened, but no one seems to be able to live up to those claims. I refuse to accept answers that require faith in order to believe them. Show me and I'll believe. The most important thing we can do as individuals is not reach a state of awareness of non-duality, but rather understand the state of duality, how each of us interacts and effects the lives of each other, how we are, at the most basic level simply one thing, the universe. That's really the non-dual state of duality, the non-duality of duality, that is attainable without ever experiencing emptiness, the void, or the light. When one experiences this it's hard not to cultivate compassion and sympathy for others. It may not be high compassion, but it is certainly compassion of a more developed nature than mere virtuous compassion. This is the compassion that the Sage develops in my opinion. Anyways, thanks for your input. Aaron

As I mentioned elsewhere it's supposed to be sarcasm. I don't expect people to prove anything, I'm just saying if they expect me to believe something is true, then they need to provide me with evidence that it is, rather than expect me to accept it on faith alone. Good insights by the way, thanks for your responses. Aaron

Hello Zoose, Thanks for your comments. I see you're playing devil's advocate to a certain degree, that's good. I'm not trying to upset or diminish anyone in this thread, rather I am pointing out what I see as fallacies. I honestly don't expect to be showed anything, so it's really sarcasm, but also I am open to new ideas. If I use the "show me" line, it's because people keep saying they can show me, and never actually do. I'm not so close minded that if I am shown something to be true, that I wont accept it as a truth. That's really my point. Sarcasm doesn't seem to do well over the internet. Also I am not enlightened... I really don't care for that word, nor do I exist in an enlightened state, rather I am aware, perhaps to a greater degree than some people, but nothing more than that. Aaron

I'm glad you didn't have to prove anything, because this is the same old rhetoric I hear every time I bring up this topic. "Oh, the reason you didn't experience x y and z is because it wasn't an enlightened experience, when you have one, you'll understand then." I call BS on that. It's a cop-out a way to argue against those who don't decide to define reality according to your paradigm. I'm not really dissing you Sunya, I know you're a nice person, but I hear this so much it's like a broken record. In fact it's been said twice so far in this thread alone. It's like it's ingrained in the Buddhist mind "Oh... if I don't feel this, it's because I really didn't have this, when I do, I will experience it!" It gets really annoying and to me, isn't any different than telling someone to worship God, just because there might be one, or to tell a doubter, "well maybe there isn't a heaven, but do you really want to take that chance?" YES! Absolutely yes! I'm not going to follow dogma without any evidence that it's REAL! That's the problem, no Buddhist can prove any of this, they can only say, "well if you want to see, you'll have to practice." Yeah, I'm going to waste ten years of my life, if not more, practicing to find out that none of it's real. Keep in mind that during those ten years I'll be taught how to think and by then I may actually believe that what I'm feeling is real, when in fact it's just preprogrammed dogma. Show me the facts and the proof and I'll be a happy little whateveryouwantmetobe kind of guy. Aaron

It's not my problem at all. My problem is people telling others that emotions are flaws and somehow need to be removed and distanced from, as if emotions, in and of themselves are the cause of hardship. What is the perfect Buddhist world? A world where people don't think at all, where they don't feel anything but the right emotions? I've experienced non-duality and on those occasions when I did experience it, I was struck by the lack of emotion present, how distant I felt, yet I didn't feel at peace, I felt absolutely nothing and I'm positive, for me, that it wasn't necessarily a better state of being. The non-duality that exists, the light, emptiness, whatever you want to call it, isn't intrinsically us either, because "we" do not exist there, there's nothing there at all, so in pursuing non-duality, what we give up is ourselves and for what? I've put a great deal of thought into this and I've mentioned it several times with the same answers, "you don't understand the truth" or "you are too attached to the illusion that is you" or even better yet "you are a critical-thinking person who fails to grasp the reality of absolute light." It's all bullshit though, because what I am beginning to realize is that regardless of what I do, I always come back to the dual existence, in fact, non-duality is transient for "ME", not the other way around. Yes I may die some day, but while I am alive I can not be in a non-dual state persistently and still be within the dual world that I exist in as "me". Even more so, we fail to realize that even within the greatness of the universe I am not really "me", but the totality of dual existence, but people gloss over that, when in fact it's probably the most important realization, because without it, I don't think you can ever experience the non-duality that exists underneath, unseen, or within everything, whichever way you want to think of it. This is the reason monks suffer from the same issues everyone else does. Monks will march off to war, they'll support atrocities, commit atrocious acts on others, and rationalize it in the name of compassion. We cannot escape the duality of our existence, even if we can minimize the attachments we have to the world. We will always be attached to this world, the only way not to be is to cease existing as who we are, and that can only be done by dissolving the essence of us, which to the best of my knowledge and experience can only be done by dying. So if we're trying to transcend this reality, then the only way any of us can achieve it is through killing ourselves, yet no one ever mentions this, because it's not really the answer everyone wants, rather they want to believe that the world can be a better place and they can end all the misery they feel and have happy thoughts or peaceful serene experiences, but none of that is real, because you can't have peace without chaos and you can't have happiness without sorrow. If you tell someone this, that they will have to give up happiness to escape misery, the only people that usually buy into this frame of thinking are the people suffering greatly, this is one of the reasons the poor tend to be the most religious. I'm sure many people are going to say this is B.S. but I ask you this, PROVE to me that it isn't, without the age old line, "well you'll never know if you don't try it", because I've tried it and it doesn't work. Maybe I wasn't indoctrinated well enough, but I went to the other side and I came back realizing it's not the entire answer, there's something more and no one wants to accept that maybe that something more has to do with learning who we are in relation to our dual existence, understanding the connection we have to all things and respecting those things in turn. It's not as easy, because it means giving up the notion of self, not in the sense of erasing who we are, or escaping our responsibility to each other through detaching, but accepting our own responsibility for the way others are as well. Aaron

My point is that no one can ever be free of desires or suffering, because they are intrinsic to this dual existence, with that in mind I am also asking why do religions tend to use this supposed escape as a selling point when they try to attract the masses? Samsara is a different topic and one I don't talk about because I don't believe in it. For me it's the Buddhist's "heaven"... nice if it were true, but even better if people are desperate enough to fall for it and start worshiping your religion in the hopes of achieving it. Aaron

Thanks for the advice. I actually watched a lot of martial arts movies in the late 70s on TV as a boy. Every Saturday they had Kung Fu theater on Channel 44, which my father loved to watch, so my brothers and sisters and I. watched it with him. I also watched most of Kurosawa's works (Seven Samurai being one of my favorite movies period). I'll check out some of the movies you've recommended, but there's a good chance I watched them years ago. I think the newer movies are easier to watch, if for no other reasons than the dialogue is better, they're less melodramatic, and they tend to be subtitled. I hate the dubbing of movies. It's funny, I don't mind dubbed anime so much, but dubbed movies drives me nuts. AAron

LOL... oh my god that was priceless.

Actually Lao Tzu said, "The Tao gives birth to One, One gives birth to two, Two gives birth to all things." He never said the Tao gives birth to form... just another correction of a misquote. Obviously your use of Vmarco stems from your belief you are a highly advanced person (which is a characteristic of narcissism) and not from a belief that you are more intelligent and a better person than other people, oh wait, you just said that you were. My bad. You can say that my problem is that I'm too cerebral, but it doesn't make it so. Bullies use this tactic (and sociopaths), they repeat the same thing over and over trying to whittle down the other person's self confidence. If one is aware of this, then they are more apt to not fall for that tactic. In regards to emotion, if you are not emotionally invested in this conversation, then I do not know who is. I am actually not that emotionally invested in this. It's funny to see how you contradict yourself so often, and I don't care for your arrogance and all-knowing attitude either, but you will be what you are, just as I am what I am. I also find it humorous that much of what you allude to has been experienced by others on this thread, Xabir, Seth, C T, and Black come to mind, but you seem to not be aware of it, even though they explain it in terms that anyone who has experienced it can recognize. This is why I say you have an intellectual understanding, but not an experiential understanding. You've read lots of books, thought about it all at great length and come to an intellectual understanding without ever having experienced it. You've mistaken a knowledge of the subject for gnowledge of the subject as you like to call it. Also, I said you were a woman a long time ago and you denied being one, now you're referring to yourself as a "her". What gives? I'm assuming you either like to play mind games or have a sexual identity problem, either way, that's another sign of emotional immaturity. You have yet to prove that you have an understanding of Taoism, though I'm sure you think that by integrating the two you will somehow be able to pull some of the "gullible" Taoists on this forum into your belief system, the sad (or happy) fact is that most of the "gullible" Taoists on this site have more knowledge of the topic than you do. I wish you well, but seriously, get a grip, you're alienating most of the people on this thread with your know-it-all attitude. I just wonder why none of the Buddhist masters ever referred to themselves in the third person, does this mean you've transcended them as well? Aaron

Let me be more clear. Adam B. makes a post using the same kind of sentence structure and language that you use on a regular basis. You reply to his post within 15 minutes of it originally coming up, within 20 minutes after that, he has enough time to watch two videos that are over 21 minutes in length and chant whatever you asked him to chant and come to the realization that he was free from his "sexual urges". What I'm saying is that, because you're not getting enough attention from your other threads, you've taken it upon yourself to create an alter ego that suffers from those very conditions you like to preach against. The fact that he is miraculously healed from your advice within 20 minutes of talking to you, and still has enough time to research and watch two videos on Youtube that take longer to watch than the length of time between your post and his (your?) reply, well it just seems HIGHLY improbable (actually impossible) that this would occur and even more so that he would use your same grammatical sentence structure. Remember I was a teacher's assistant while in college, if there's something I can recognize it's when someone's writing sounds uncharacteristically like someone else. Maybe I'm wrong... I don't think I am though. It would be interesting to find out whether or not you and adam b are within the same locality or maybe on the same IP address. Aaron

You're a great researcher, you're just not a practitioner. That's really the problem, you've accumulated all this knowledge, but have no real idea how to apply it to your own life, hence the reason so many people say, "I like your ideas, but I don't like the way you behave." Also I'd be careful about speaking in the third person, simply because those that do speak in the third person almost invariably suffer from narcissism. That's the American Psychiatric Association for you, failing to see the enlightened nature of others and instead defining them as socially maladjusted. I'm not saying you're narcissistic by the way, just that I've learned about this kind of thing in my past studies. It's more of a warning that some people might be prone to attributing that quality to you because of your desire to allude to yourself in such a way. I think your quote by T.S. Eliot was priceless, if only because it really does describe your own issues as well, the fact that you have come under the influence of the lotos flower, lost within a dreamlike world of your own creation, incapable of discerning what is real and unreal, assuming that the youth of the nation is in decay and that the past and future holds the truth rather than the present, here and now (which is actually what that passage means in case you were unaware... How do I know this? Because I researched and wrote a paper on the Four Quartets, so in the future you may want to choose a different source to quote out of context.) I also want to thank you for conceding that you were wrong. You have not once responded to any of my comments regarding your actions and character, invariably because you cannot defend your actions. Also, please don't worry about hurting my feelings, I am more than prepared to handle your own brand of compassion, if you choose to dispense of it.

Lost the argument, attack person's character, attack person's intelligence, pat self on back for being so witty and bright, add a smattering of quotes (mostly out of context)... does this sound familiar. It's like a broken record. Honestly, why do you even bother continuing if you know you've already lost? If I didn't know better I'd say you were a masochist. Aaron

I clicked once or twice, because I rarely have catastrophe dreams anymore, but when I was 13 I had recurring nightmares about a nuclear holocaust for about five or six months. Aaron

You read too much. Spend less time reading and more time practicing and you'll get better results. I would recommend keeping in mind the concepts of compassion, frugality, and never striving to be first in the world. If you can stop competing with others and just let yourself experience what there is to experience (through meditation and practice if you want) then you will eventually find an answer to your questions, even if it's not the one you might've wanted. Aaron

You don't NEED any philosophy or religion. I'm a firm believer that through meditation and introspection you can understand your original nature and connection to the world on your own. Of course examining religions and philosophies objectively isn't harmful either, just remember that for every truth there is a lie. If you can avoid absolutes you'll do fine. In the meantime I would still suggest, and I honestly mean suggest, that if you are interested in becoming more aware of your relationship to this existence, that you might want to entertain the idea of meditating. Silent mind meditation is my own preferred method. All it takes is finding a comfortable and quiet place to sit, closing your eyes and silencing your mind. If you'd like some more information regarding the practice, I'd be happy to share, but if you don't feel like practicing that is absolutely wonderful too. Live your life as best you can, do no harm to others or yourself, and you'll be one of the highest level practitioners on the face of the earth. Best wishes on your journey, Aaron

Adam B., Tulku may mean well, but he might not be the best source for your salvation from sexual addiction. If you truly are a sex addict, then I would suggest seeking therapy, though the rate of recidivism is very high, so you might actually benefit more from some type of group treatment, like Sex Addicts Anonymous or Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous. Of course, I mean no offense, but one thing I noticed is that you seem to use the same sentence structure as Tulku, so you may be kindred spirits. Perhaps he knows you better than we do. At least you were lucky enough have read his post and have your realization all within the space of an hour, some addicts go their entire life without finding a miracle cure. Aaron

I would like you to cite your sources regarding this. I can dig mine up, but the fact is Wiki actually does a great job of citing sources to support my statements. I'm not sure what people have against wiki, except it allows the common joe to learn about a topic with relative ease. In the end you're been grossly mislead regarding the Hua Hu Ching. Have you even read any of my posts? I'm the last one focused on the messenger. I have consistently urged people to look for answers within, rather than through books and messiahs. I believe that each of us can attain awareness of our true nature without having to study under a master or follow religious or philosophical dogma. I have studied Taoism, obviously much more than you have, so if it upsets you that I correct your misinterpretations and extrapolations, that's on you, not me. I would suggest that much of this is projection, because I am certain that there are people on this board that might consider the above statements to be characteristics of you (and if I took the time I could probably pull a few other member's posts that have said the same thing.) You're intelligent and a bit insidious in your style of debate, I'll give you that. First you make your point, when your point is threatened you insult the other person's character or intelligence... you seem to like to use the word ignorant a lot. Here's something you might find interesting, in Taoism the ignorant man is held in higher esteem than the knowledgeable, for they will be more open to the ideas of Tao, since they have not been corrupted by knowledge and academia. Lao Tzu would tell you, "be done with books, look within, that's where the answer to your questions reside." Again, the above comments show me the depth of your character. Jabs and cuts at my character and intellect, all because I have shown that you don't know what you're talking about. You would be best to ignore me, because regarding the topics of enlightenment, compassion, and especially Taoism, I have a far greater understanding than you apparently do. You have studied books and read a great deal, but I get the feeling that is the extent of your practice. Your intense bigotry of other religions (should we forget your attacks on Christianity?) Not to mention your intolerance of anyone who views things differently from your own "right" view, brings this out in stereo. You have no practical understanding of Taoism or compassion. You have an intellectual understanding, but no experience whatsoever. So keep up the petty personal attacks, it just allows people deeper insight into your nature. At least, if nothing else, it helps people to see exactly how much you understand about the topic(s) at hand. Oh, and thank you kindly for the last word. Aaron

This is your own perceived notion based on your understanding and isn't the general view of yang. You have tried to attribute Buddhist qualities to it, so you have taken it out of context. Yang and Yin are neither form and except for you mentioning it just now, I've never heard of anyone ascribing form to yin or yang, since they are actually just the opposing aspects of forces. Form is not a force, so I would not ascribe that notion to Yang or Yin, it's like saying blankets and pillows are yin and yang, or C T and Dwai are Yin and Yang, it just doesn't make sense to ascribe physical things as such. Aaron

Actually the vast majority of Taoists do not accept the Hua Hu Ching as authentic. The people that do claim it's authenticity are most often practicing Buddhists that want to harmonize Taoism and Buddhism, these same Buddhists claim that once Lao Tzu left China, he went to India to teach the Buddha or become the Buddha, depending on who you talk to. The vast majority of academics and scholars realize the Hua Hu Ching was written far too late to be authentic, especially without any previous text to support it's authenticity. Also the similarities in the quotes would lead me to be suspicious of it. However if it helps you to better understand your own belief system, then by all means, I urge you to continue to study it. I'm just stating the factual evidence regarding the text. I have no problem with you quoting the text, but I do feel it's irresponsible to attribute these quotes to Lao Tzu without also noting that he most likely never said that and there is no actual evidence to attribute the text to Lao Tzu or even to the time that Lao Tzu was purported to live. Aaron

Vmarco, Just to clarify, where did you find the quotes you've used for Lao Tzu, because I don't recall ever hearing accepted documentation of Lao Tzu saying any of the above and I would be interested in knowing the source of these particular quotes, because if they're actually from an accepted authentic text, it would appear that Taoism and Buddhism are the same thing. That would settle a lot of the debates on this forum. Another thing to keep in mind is that you're trying to ascribe Buddhist terms to Taoist ideas and that really doesn't work, because they are very separate and unique philosophies. In regards to compassion this is even more so, because in Taoism the highest form of compassion does not originate from non-duality (since there is no concept of non-duality in Taoism), but rather from the Tao, or process of Tao. So when we are acting in accord with Tao then compassion will manifest itself on its own. Also including brackets like (form) for yang, doesn't mean that's the context in which it was supposed to be represented. Remember the definition of Yin and Yang change depending on the context their used within. That's one of the issues you might be having, your understanding of Taoism and the terminology isn't sufficient yet, so you're ascribing Buddhist ideology to Taoist ideology, which doesn't really work. The definition of virtue is even different depending on what religion you're ascribing the term to. In fact it's different for Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hunduism, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, so unless you're simply using the generic dictionary definition, you really should point out which specific religion and school of practice you're using to define your term, otherwise it can be very confusing. Aaron