Aaron

edit- I decided to respond to some of the points in the post. Dwai's "trickery" was a direct response to your perceived assault on his idea. You two are behaving like the little boy who is being harassed by the bee. The boy's father tells him to leave it alone and it wont bother him, but because the boy is afraid of being stung, he keeps swinging at it and eventually gets stung. If you both quit swinging, and show that you're not a threat to each other, then neither of you will be stung. There is no need to feel sympathy. I'm not competing with you or trying to say that I know more about this than you, rather I am pointing out how my view differs from your own. You still see me as the bee trying to sting you, but really I'm just curious as to what you are, flying around trying to understand exactly what you're saying, while letting you know I am here so you wont try and swing at me. The kind of compassion that's being talked about isn't necessarily the compassion you're referring to. I was referring to high compassion as it's understood within Taoism and I also said that it can't really be defined, nor have I said it has an opposite. I was just stating that in the context of low virtue, which was what was being referred to by the monk in the video, we can understand the virtue of compassion and define it's parameters. I would also point out that my knowledge comes from experiential understanding of compassion, whereas yours derives from an academic examination, so my description may not coincide with what you've been taught compassion is. That's because the virtue of compassion is dualistic in nature and when one explains the concept of high compassion, they need to do so within a framework that can be understood within the dual context of existence. If I were to explain this in a non-dualistic framework, it couldn't be done. In fact the moment you put words on a piece of paper what you're talking about intrinsically becomes dualistic in nature. I'm not sure what upset you so much, but I would point out that you left out much of what I said to support the notion of compassion as a high virtue in action. I would suggest that you go back and examine that part of my comment, for that is where the meat of compassion resides. It is not within the thought or idea, but within the action. Lastly, I would rather not continue to argue this point. If you're right, then be satisfied that you're right. I am satisfied that my understanding is valid and deserves further investigation. I am also satisfied that I have explained it sufficiently that most people can grasp what I am talking about. I leave it to them to decide what they believe to be true. I am not here to say, "believe what I tell you or you are wrong" because I am not competing with them, rather sharing my ideas in the hopes it might help them to understand how I understand compassion. I do not have the last word on this topic and I'm certain a hundred years from now people may even come to understand compassion at a greater depth than we do now, but if we believe that what we know now is the end all to the investigation, then we will never have the opportunity to understand it in a deeper context. So my suggestion is rather than tell people they're wrong, you could just tell them what you believe and allow them to accept or not accept it. I would also suggest that you stop attacking other people's character and insulting them when you feel threatened, rather just stand still and allow them to see what you are, so they know you're not a threat to them. Aaron

Thanks Cow Tao, I appreciate the video link. I thought he did a good job of explaining the idea of compassion. Aaron

VMarco does not respond to such an elementry question,...one in which any considerate Westerner would simply type "Buddhist Compassion" on a search engine, and been shown thousands of entries, which among the first would be karuna,.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karuṇā Then, in response to VMarco's non-response, dwai spews, GOTCHA! "I don't have to rely on wikis to know this. I am very familiar with the nuances of my native languages." Thus, dwai is at the very least an ingenuine person, asking a question he already believes he knows, and second, deeply ignorant, as he actually does not understand his own native language which he implies includes the word "karuna." Dwai's suffering is so profound that he actually believes he is making some sort of contribution on this forum. CT's video above on Compassion and Pity was interesting,...however, if one is paying attention, the monk let it be known that his definition was conditioned by his Tradition and his (mistaken)ideas regarding meditation. A few years ago, a woman named Esther Hicks made a quite pithy observation,...she said, "We teach meditation, or quieting the mind, because it is really easier to teach you to have no thoughts, than to teach you to have pure, positive thought. We would rather you be in a state of appreciation, than in a state of meditation, because in appreciation you are a vibrational match to your [Higher Self]." Within that quote can be seen the nature of suffering. The unappreciative are always in a state in of suffering. For the most part, the majority of posters at TTB are unappreciative. They play games like dwai,...for example, setting up questions they believe they already know so to say gotcha!. Twinner is similiar,...he is writing a book on compassion because he already believes he knows everything about compassion,...for example, Twinner says: Twinner is another unppreciative individual who presumes he knows what compassion is. An unappreciative individual does not, and cannot understand the nature of authentic compassion in the Bodhisattva view, because compassion is a natural byproduct of appreciation. It doesn't come from, nor arise from meditation,...although meditation can be a stepping stone to appreciation. Appreciation is also the core of the admirable friendship of a proper sangha. Every spiritually oriented forum should be as a sangha,...helping and encouraging and expressing a positive message within the forum. Instead, the egoic, gotcha! mentality on TTB is a reflection of the contemporary world today. VMarco is not on this forum to teach, nor to advocate the positiveness of a sangha,...she is predominately here to learn about how negative, insincere people express their unappreciativeness. V Hello Vmarco, You're making a lot of assumptions here, the first being that you are right and others are wrong, and I might ask what basis you have to show this to be the truth. The second is that you say people are unappreciative, and I'm sure you've been waiting for me to respond to this, so I hope this helps you out in that regard, but you don't really know whether I am appreciative or not. I have stated that I have been meditating and practicing Taoism for over 20 years, that means I've spent a great deal of time contemplating these things, in particular compassion and the nature of compassion as it's been expressed in the Tao Teh Ching, but I have also studied the idea of compassion in Hinduism, particularly Vedanta, as well as Zen and Ch'an Buddhism. When I conclude that compassion, high compassion to be exact, can't really be taught, it's simply because it is a natural byproduct of an awareness of the nature of existence. What this monk is talking about is compassion as a virtue, compassion as it's expressed within the conditions of the eightfold path. In this sense he is not wrong, or off the mark, but he is on the mark, because the objective of the eightfold path is to teach people to live a virtuous life in the hopes that it will help them to become awakened to their true nature. When one is awakened, then the eightfold path is no longer necessary, because in this awakened state one can practice compassion from their true nature, or original nature. Appreciation has nothing to do with compassion, appreciation has to do with one's objective relationship with other things. I appreciate beautiful flowers and even beautiful weeds. I have appreciated a sheet of paper being blown down the street by the wind, and I did appreciate the effort you made to provide me with sources for compassion. You have assumed that I am unappreciative, but that's entirely up to you. One can appreciate the fact another person tried to help them by pushing them out of the way of a bee, even if that push sent them in front of car that ran them over. It doesn't mean that act was beneficial, only that they understood the intent. I think one can examine the conversations here and clearly pick out those who understand compassion as a virtue and compassion as a product of our original nature, simply by examining the way each of us interacts with each other. I am not entirely or completely compassionate, I can react to people I think are antagonistic or bullying, but I am aware of that and I try very hard not to hold malice for them, as a matter of practicing compassion as a virtue, but I can still feel high compassion rise within me and I can act on it, such as when I was eighteen and thrust my leg inside a revolving glass door to prevent a baby from being crushed. My intention wasn't to be a hero, but rather that I saw the baby's arm wrapped around the inside of the door and I didn't want it to be crushed. I didn't know the baby, nor was anyone watching to say, "oh what a great job you did." I didn't stop for praise, I just checked to make sure the baby was okay and left. I'm sure each of us remembers a time that something like this happened. When people are asked why they've put themselves at risk to help another person, they usually say, "well anyone would've done it" because we believe innately within ourselves that this is true. The true test of compassion as a virtue is being able to treat others with respect regardless of how they treat us. There is no test for high compassion, it arises of its own accord and compels us without explanation. If you understand this, then you have started to gather a glimmer of understanding high compassion. I don't dislike anyone on this board. I see this forum as an immensely positive place, but filled with far too many masters and people who absolutely unequivocally know the truth. Those are the people I tend to question, because more often than not their truths are not based on reality or experience, but rather faith in something they've been told is true. The opposite of compassion is apathy. The opposite of love is hate. When one is behaving with animosity towards another, it's usually not because they lack compassion, or don't care, but rather because they have let their emotions get the better of them. We could all do with a reminder of what Lao Tzu suggested, that the most precious jewels are compassion, frugality, and never competing to be first in the world. If we as a forum can stop the intellectual circle jerks, I think we'll be well on the way to being able to appreciate those three jewels. Aaron

I think this was a very honest explanation of the problems pertaining to the term "enlightened". When someone decides to define enlightenment, then it becomes less of a state of awareness and rather a position within society. The enlightened person, IMO, would not care whether or not others saw him as enlightened, rather they would be more concerned with acting in a way that is conducive to their enlightened experience. I think you are right, no one alive is "enlightened", not in the sense that they have escaped the ego or the transient existence that we live in. The world is here and we are here. If one did escape it, then would we even be aware that they did so, would their existence even be registered by the unenlightened masses, since to escape the terms of reality would mean that everything they were and would be would also cease to be a part of this existence as well. In regards to your original nature, it exists here and now, so in that sense you are enlightened, just not aware of it. If you want to become aware of your original nature, then that does require introspection and examination, but it is by no means a necessity to exist or continue to exist. Even if you do become aware of it, you will not become immortal, nor will you be able to continue to be the person that is so inextricably connected to the body that is you in the here and now. The ego dies, the only you that continues is the actual you that already exists and is everything that exists. In other words you are "It", but only "It" will exist forever, you as a perceived individual is transient and temporary. Aaron

A compassionate person would not write any of this... fact and point. A compassionate person would see the struggle of egos within this thread and steer clear. I think that's the real point here, everything being described and defined falls short, since high compassion is almost impossible to define, since it has no motivation based on ego, hence it does not strive for justice or injustice, it sees all things as equal and it's intent is for the benefit of the whole, not the parts of the whole. One who acts compassionately with the whole's benefit does not strive to end a war or start a war, to teach what is right or what is moral, rather it endeavors to ease the suffering of those that it can for the benefit of the whole. It does so because it is beneficial to the whole. So those who lay down paths of conduct and ways of thinking have fallen short of high compassion and rather dwell in the realms of low compassion. Anytime you speak of high compassion in the context of justice, or right, or good and bad, then you have ceased to speak of it, for it is none of these things. In regards to the sources, they were nice, but I was more interested in actual books about the topic, and not so much random quotes. I would like to understand the context of the discussion of compassion, rather than just the bits and pieces of those discussions. I do thank you for taking the time to post them and I am not unappreciative, rather I was explaining my own view as it conflicts with the view of the posts you've made. Ironically, I think most of the Buddhists that you quoted would agree with me on the general principle. However since this forum is very much based on the ego constructs battling of wits, most seem to misunderstand the underlying nature of compassion, since they relate it very much to their ego self, rather than their whole self. Also I said, Tao, Source, One, etc. in order to explain it in the context of various understandings of what people believe to be "it", rather than say, I know what "it" is and you don't. Aaron

I would say my explanation of compassion is the actual reality of compassion, in the sense of delineating the actual source of compassion from the act of compassion as it is viewed by the ego and self. Compassion cannot be trained or cultivated in the sense that it is something that is taught, rather it is something that is awakened through an understanding of one's connection to the One, Source, etc. We have the capacity for High Compassion within us, in fact we come into this world as human beings with the knowledge, yet it is the creation of the ego and the rationalization of our existence as being separate from the whole that causes us to forget that it is still there. Aaron

Actually I wasn't making a comment regarding the sources you pointed at, but rather the responses made by people in regards to them. I particularly appreciate Sharon Salzberg's description of compassion, but it still is only a half truth in regards to compassion, because compassion, in its highest form does not see injustice, nor justice, for those are moral obligations that have no sway over high virtue. High virtue is not an intellectual action based on morality, but rather simply an action derived, not from sentimentality, but rather empathy derived from an innate understanding of one's connection to the One, Source, Tao, Emptiness, or whatever you choose to call it. High virtue is an impulse that stems from an awareness of the actuality of who you are and what you are, the one, so when one acts in this way, it is not to prove someone wrong or another right, it is not to say, "you are killing others and need to punished", but rather it is the action that prevents others from causing harm or eases the suffering of others. To say that you acted compassionately in order to end injustice, is essentially saying that you did it for a moral reason and thus the act came from the ego and not the Source or one's awareness of their being the Source. Aaron edit- You also quoted me out of context, I stated that I was intending to write a book about compassion. I intend to examine it from the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Taoist, and Muslim view, but the book isn't about the ideal, but the idea of what Compassion actually is and how we choose to describe it. In every religion the Creator is always compassionate, yet man places moral qualities on the act of compassion, which essentially means those acts are compassionate in a humanistic sense, but ultimately fall short of the actuality of compassion as it arises from our original nature.

The Tao Teh Ching never promises happiness, it promises balance in one's life. I will not say what your problems stem from, only that your experience isn't unique and is endemic in many people growing up in the world today. My suggestion is that, if you're feeling lonely you need to go out and meet people and make friends. When you feel smothered by all these friends, then you need to retreat and spend time alone. The key here is to understand what you actually want from life and whether what you want can be achieved. If all you want is a cure for your loneliness, then you don't need Taoism or Buddhism, you just need to identify those things that cause you to feel lonely. Keep in mind that this may involve some soul searching and introspection. So here's something you can do--- Find a quiet place inside where you can sit alone. Sit in a comfortable position (don't lay down, or you may fall asleep). Close your eyes for a few moments, then once you feel comfortable, breath in deeply, filling your lungs as full as you can, then exhale slowly. Keep breathing this way, breathing in slowly til you have a full breath, then exhaling slowly. Let all your thoughts clear from your mind and simply focus on remembering the first time you felt this loneliness. Don't try to remember why, just when. When you can do this open your eyes and take a break. It may take some time before you remember, until then keep it up. Once you have remembered the when then it is time to move on. At that point send me a message and I will help you with the next step. Keep in mind this isn't psychological help, I am giving you spiritual guidance. If you feel like you're at risk for harming yourself, or your symptoms get worse, then you should seek medical attention. Aaron

I think it's clear from everyone's responses, that no one hear understands exactly what compassion is. There are two forms of compassion, high and low, as Lao Tzu calls them. High Compassion stems from an act that is selfless, it's purpose is only to ease the suffering of others. Low compassion stems from morality and ego, it is never done selflessly, but rather to gain something in return, eternal life, status, or simply to feel better about one's self. When you can perform an act of compassion without asking anything in return, simply performing it because it needed to be done to benefit someone else, then you have performed compassion as it was described by the sages and Buddha. Without understanding one's connection to the one, you will never be able to perform this kind of act. Without transcending the ego, you can never understand exactly why you NEED to do this. And it is a need that is ingrained within us all, perhaps the emptiness we feel that compels us to seek salvation come's from this need, yet there is no need to be saved to find this highest of virtues, simply give yourself to everything that is you and ask nothing in return. Aaron

I was thinking it might be nice to have a chat session about a specific topic once a week at a scheduled time. In particular I was hoping to have it on Thursdays at 9PM EST so the west coast and east coast could make it, and have it last an hour to an hour and a half. We would probably need a bit of moderation, at least to prevent people from talking over one and another and also require that people stay on topic. Anyways I thought it would be cool. Some other ideas.... 1) Have three topics suggested in the Chat thread prior to the date, the one that got the most response would be the chosen topic. 2) Maybe schedule some Q&A's with some of the teachers about a specific aspect of their practice, using the voice chat option for the speaker if it's not too hard to set up and having the questions chosen (from a range of ones posed in the thread) prior to the date, so the moderator would pose the questions chosen before the date to the speaker. 3) Make it a regular thing... I would like to see chat being used more often. It's an excellent opportunity to get to know one another and broaden the community. 4) No grammar police allowed. Any other ideas would be welcome... these were just my (non-)original thoughts. Aaron

I too see many instances where posts are replete with cut, copy and paste from other sources. I also imagine the violators feel they have license to borrow anyone's work and pretend such work is their own. In my opinion the recent geometry thread is an excellent case in point. There are a number of posts that appear to be copied from other sources without citing proper references. Just kidding. This is a valid topic. I try to cite my sources if I use them. It's good practice and considered good form. I'm not saying it should be in the ToS, but it would be nice if people were aware of it. Of course then you have those people that complain when people cite sources, which is just as annoying. Aaron

Yeah it was nice. I'll certainly do it again.

Okay... I'll wait for you. Hope you can make it in. Aaron

I think this is a Western concept, in the East they would assume if someone had achieved a high level of energy practice, that they had also cultivated a mature attitude, simply because maturity is integral to the higher levels of practice. One cannot advance very far in practice if they lack emotional maturity and integrity. Even those practicing the so called "dark" practices (dim mak, white eyebrow, and white tiger as examples) required a great deal of emotional maturity in order to be able to maintain the control needed to channel the energy. In America people practice Qigong for different reasons than most Asians do, as well. In part because we have do not value virtue because we are much more interested in the power aspect of the arts. Just my opinion and experience, please don't flame because of it. Aaron

Ohhh.... I tried so hard to stay out of this thread. Tulku, even if most of your threads are reactionary and a bit delusional (imo), they do get a lot of responses. The only thing I'll say is that when you get older and your body starts maturing you'll find that people are attracted to other people and when they are attracted to other people, they want to spend time with that other person, and be with that other person. When you experience this you will not see it as a curse. Aaron

Thanks for the information VMarco... I had actually asked Marco if he could point me in the direction of some good sources regarding compassion and he was kind enough to post them on the forum so that they would be available to anyone who might be interested. In response to some of the comments made so far regarding compassion... In Taoism there are two different types of virtues, John C. H. Wu translates them as high virtue and low virtue. It's referred to in chapter 38 of the Tao Teh Ching. The difference between the two is that high virtue is without virtue, i.e. it is practiced without moral dogma or religious ideology. In Chapter 38 it goes a bit further and states that low virtue, what we would consider virtue in the Western sense, is without virtue, because it is steeped in virtue. In this sense one could say that the highest form of compassion stems, not from right or wrong, or moral dogma, but from the instinctual response one has towards another. I was having problems with one particular chapter in regards to Taoism and compassion, in particular Chapter 5 where it says, the Sage and Tao are not sentimental, they treat all things as straw dogs. My initial translation of that chapter was that the Sage (and Tao) really didn't care about all things, but I realized later on, that's not what it means at all, rather it means that he doesn't play favorites. The pile of dung has just as much value as the pile of diamonds. So the Sage practices compassion by putting others before himself. He treats all things equally. Also I think a lot of people think of "love" when they think of compassion and the two are separate things. Anyways, I think it was a good original post and I also believe you have the right to post it wherever you want. Aaron

The concept of emptiness is found in many different religions. In Judaism it's found in their view of YHWH and ein sof, in Hinduism it's the realization of emptiness that leads to enlightenment, in Taoism it represents the Tao. It's really a universal concept, so I think your master was speaking what he believed to be true from his own experience. In the end it's the interpretation of emptiness that changes, for instance the Buddhist (and Hindu to a lesser degree) believe emptiness is the true reality, that everything else is transient and illusionary, and most who attain that state seem to agree in that regard. However all the religions I've mentioned believe that is in attaining emptiness that one opens one's self up to the true nature of the world. My own experience in emptiness was enlightening, but also quite disturbing. I felt alone, even when I was at a stadium with my family watching a soccer game. The sensation of what exists, as you stated, everywhere and within everything, is beyond comprehension and explanation, so in my opinion, from my own experience, even though one can attain an awareness of this emptiness, if one is not given an explanation of what it is prior to experiencing it, then it can be overwhelming and desensitize you to the world around you. I distinctly remember feeling as if I was not even at the soccer game, but rather that it was like watching a movie. Instead of being there I was observing what was there, caught, if you will, in a limbo like place. Aaron

I'm not particularly pleased with this comment, my father was German and Jewish (Grandfather was German, grandmother Dutch Jew). I take offense when people tend to stereotype German's without really knowing much about the culture. I take offense with people who stereotype Jews as well, because of the same thing. I don't perceive a bias towards German tourists, anymore than I see a bias against American tourists. This just seems to be a trolling post to me, intentionally derogatory in order to incite an emotional response. Tsk. Tsk. I guess if you've been around long enough you can make an obviously bigoted post, without being chastised for it. Aaron

I dropped by the "Pain" thread, which had been renamed the "........................" and found that many of the posts had been removed, even though the comments didn't violate the terms of service or insult policy. I was wondering why this happened and if anyone can give me a straight answer about it. I feel as if this was edited so as to remove evidence of how some of the people involved were behaving. I wont name names (edit- I did later on), but apparently the "master" got his way and the thread was rewritten as he wanted. This is something I'd expect from the tea room, but not here. I think it's a dark specter on the horizon. Not good if this is a sign of things to come. Can we actually disagree with the powers that be here anymore? Aaron edit- All evidence of Ya Mu's childish actions, renaming the thread, something I didn't think you could do without mod approval, his reactionary comments to me, and anything that called into question medicinal qigong seems absent, or maybe I wasn't looking close enough. This really surprised me, as I thought this was one of the last bastions of freedom of speech in the Tao arena... the other sites on the web are notorious for modifying their rules on the fly, but here there always seemed to be a sense of freedom. I guess that's become a thing of the past.

You don't need to be in a train wreck to know what physical pain feels like. You don't need to have parkinson's to understand that the lack of control over one's body can cause them to suffer. These kind of grandiose claims have no basis in disproving what I've said. In order to empathize with others, we must first have suffered, not necessarily the same suffering, but something that allows us to know what they've felt. Remember back when you were a child, before you lost anyone close to you, how did you feel when one of your friends lost someone close to them, wasn't it hard to empathize with the loss, instead you empathized with their sadness. So no, you don't have to experience the same thing, but suffering is inherently a part of empathy and compassion. If you say that you can sense another person's emotions, great, I wont say anything about that, but what I will say is that it's ingrained in each of us to understand people's emotions. Body signs, facial cues, etc., however much of this is culturally based, there are certain signs that are universal. In understanding these signs, one can understand the emotional state of the person we're talking to. Nothing mystical about it, just being observant. The highest level Buddhists in Tibet and Japan are well known for being able to do this and say it's akin to reading a book. "Master, how did you know he was sad?" "It was written in his face." Aaron

I'm done. All I wanted was an answer, in lieu of that, I will let this go, because there is nothing to be gained from going forward. Owledge, I would suggest that you take to heart what others have said, it's not your place to diagnose and "save" people that don't want to be saved. If someone says, no, then listen to them. There is no compassion in continuing an exchange just to placate one's own ego, and I would suggest that you are being directed more by your own need to be right, than compassion right now. Ya Mu, I would suggest that you examine your own actions, as I have, even if you don't admit openly that you've done wrong, if you see someplace in your own interaction that you might've done something wrong, then take that to heart for the future. I will try very hard to not judge your practice in the future. For me this is an ethical question, one that involves how one should behave and as I said before, I'm not smelling of roses here. Aaron

Respect that's earned because you feel the person is sufficiently skilled to teach you the practice. For me that requires more than just a sign on a door. Aaron

The kind of respect I'm talking about is the teacher-student respect, of course you treat everyone with respect, but if you want to be respected as a teacher, you do need to earn it. Aaron

Sounds yummy. If I can make it to an Asian market, I may just give this a shot. I love Indian food by the way, and Indian soups are so yummy. (I got hooked on Indian food when I became a vegetarian many years ago.) Sigh... there used to be a great Indian restaurant about 15 minutes away from my old place, but I don't think there are any where I am at now, at least none I've found. I may have to start making my own Indian cuisine, starting with this soup. Aaron

I don't think people should be discouraged from asking questions, just because someone has status. In fact a person's demeanor is one of the things I examine before I accept them as a teacher. I have never claimed to be a teacher, but I am by far not a novice either. I have been practicing meditation and hypnosis for over 20 years and I have taught it in the past. Many people aren't interested in my form of practice because the only thing I can honestly offer someone is peace, contentment, and a greater awareness from my method. I don't promise special powers, nor do I promise they will live longer or be able to heal other people. I also don't charge anything for my lessons, they've always been free. I led a weekly class on meditation and self-hypnosis for a year and never got paid a dime for it, nor did I ask for any money, for me it was a form of service and giving back what I've learned to others. If someone is paid for their teaching, that's fine, but I wasn't in need of money at the time and didn't see it as a career choice, so I chose to be altruistic. Now with that said, I don't go around seeking students either, because when a student is ready, they will present themselves, more often than not. When people have needed my help, I've always been happy to help them. I am not, by the way, a master, nor do I consider myself a master, I'm just simply making a point that many of the people here could be teachers, and that simply because someone claims to be a teacher should not garner them any more respect then anyone else. People need to earn respect. Anyways, I understand what you're saying. I sometimes feel sorry that we lost 5E, he was a font of knowledge and because of petty bickering about lineage, was lost. Anyways, no use crying over the past, we still have many great people here and I don't see them leaving anytime soon. Aaron