Aaron

I lost around 60 pounds in six months by eliminating unhealthy snack foods and soda period (not even diet soda, because it has hidden calories). I don't necessarily watch what I eat anymore, I just try to maintain healthy portions, which in the end I think is hardest thing to do, but most beneficial. My rule of thumb when I was dieting was to cut back on calories til I started losing weight, then maintain that amount of food so long as I continued to, once I plateaued, I ate a little less again. At the end I got down to around 200 pounds from 268lbs, relatively pain free. I'm up to 209 now, but I tend to stay around 205, fluctuating up and down. (Oh I know that sounds like a lot of weight, but I'm actually 6'2" tall and have a large build.) Aaron

Hello Geoball, I think the distinct issue here has to do with the world and you. You seem to believe the world is the one with the issues, but in my experience the vast majority of people do not hate the world, so perhaps you should examine whether or not your problem stems from within yourself. Practicing Tai Chi is fine and good, but it is worthless if you are not actually practicing what's being taught within the Tao Te Ching, which is compassion, never striving to be first in the world, and frugality. The first thing to remember is that simplicity and frugality are worlds apart. Nothing in the Tao Te Ching says you have to eat rice everyday or not own a car, that's all supposition. The same goes for never striving to be first and humility. Humility means that you don't consider yourself to be any better or worse than anyone else, but it has nothing to do with competition, which is where the majority of strife occurs in one's life. You can be as prideful as you want to be, the key is not competing with others, nor trying to control them. "I'm the greatest martial artist in the world," says the Kung Fu master. Yet he refuses to fight others or compete, so he lives a simple and peaceful existence. See the difference? It's very important when you're understanding the philosophy of Laoism and Chuangism as it relates to Taoism, that you also understand that much of what was taught to westerners regarding Taoism was influenced by Christian and Western philosophy and morality. If you want an honest translation, I find the best translations of the Tao Te Ching to read are Henricks and Wu. They seem to get down to the meat of the matter. I think if you begin to really look into the Tao Te Ching, not just superficially reading it and going "ah ha" I got that, but rather contemplating it for some time, you'll begin to see some connections you might not have seen before. You are still rather young and you have a long way to go before you'll really be able to comprehend most of what the world has to offer. Until then don't waste your youth on piety and angst, if you don't see beauty, then look for it. I will leave you with one final bit of wisdom. Every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth. When you understand this, then much of what you'll learn will begin to make complete sense. Aaron

Well I'm not sure there is such a thing as Karma or Dharma, at least nothing was mentioned about that, rather I was told we continue to be reincarnated until we learn the lesson we're supposed to learn, but the being I met never told me what that lesson was. Anyways I got the distinct impression that what we should be concentrating on is this life, rather than our previous lives (which are only "ours" in the very general sense). Aaron

My concept of reincarnation comes from an encounter with a being in a place that I was told housed our consciousness between lives. This being was very powerful and stated that the place where consciousness goes to reside is beyond space and time and when we come back to be reincarnated, our next lives can be in the past or the future. Just be aware that he also said that we remember nothing of our previous lives, so to say it's "us" being reincarnated isn't true, since the you that you are now ceases to be at the time of reincarnation, the only thing that lives on is the capacity for consciousness within us. Aaron

Why is that, or more importantly, why exactly do you think this is? My point is that terming something mainstream isn't necessarily the truth and that perhaps, the author had preconceptions about Western civilization that colored his view on the actuality of it. And of course that one should at least have a general knowledge of what they're criticizing, rather than one based on sound bites and a one hour lecture. In that sense, I could very well defend Christianity and Islam, at least the generalities that have been pushed forth here, but I don't think that's necessary. There were some great insights made in this thread, but I think the general anti-west sentiment diminishes them. Aaron

Hello Sereneblue, I think you're missing my point, which is that the insanity a man experiences is intrinsically connected to the cultural and societal influences that they live within. It's simply a definition of a state that is in opposition to what is considered the norm. In this sense Nietzsche was right, in that insanity in the individual does not exist, simply because it is the state of that individual and is not in opposition to anything. I would go even further and say that much of the suffering caused by mental disorders is directly related to the social constructs that individual lives within, which is why you find some societies (especially indigineous peoples) have dramatically fewer incidents of mental illness than others. Again Chapter 38 talks about this when it states that the further we go from our original nature, the more likely we are to suffer because of it. I think another thing we like to do is place blame on the individual, assume something is wrong with them, when in fact it's not them per se, but society as a whole that's at fault. Thirdly, I have suffered from "insanity". I was diagnosed with clinical depression and dysthymia for nearly fifteen years. I did not break free from depression until I began to sober up in Alcoholics Anonymous. Practicing the Twelve Steps helped me to see how my suffering was directly related to my reaction towards others and that much of my suffering was caused by my own actions. It was in direct opposition to everything I had learned up until then. I'm not saying I haven't been depressed since then, but I do understand the nature of depression and how completely hopeless one can feel in that state. My belief that this is caused by society doesn't change because of this experience, rather it's deepened because of it. I understand you may feel differently, and that's fine, but I still hold to my original explanation of what Nietzsche was alluding to, and even though he may not have been completely on the mark, he has come closer than the majority of philosophers in Western society. Aaron

The link is dead... just a heads up. Aaron

edited---- I would like someone to tell me why so many Taoist's seem to be preoccupied with celibacy? I've been looking in the Tao Teh Ching, Chaung Tzu, and I-Ching and I can't find anything that seems to correspond to celibacy being required or necessary? Is this something attributed to Chinese Folk Lore? Aaron

The greatest living practitioner you will ever know is yourself. So I would say you are one of the greatest living practitioners. Look within and you will not need to look for someone else. Aaron

Hello Folks, I wanted to point out a misconception that was being presented in this thread in regards to the Abrahamic religions, in particular Judaism. In Judaism God (YHWH) is regarded much as the Tao and Brahma. YHWH, the essence of God (which literally means The Existent One) cannot be understood or comprehended by mankind logically or intellectually. YHWH is in essence unnameable and unfathomable, it is considered the true force of creation and also the compassion directed towards the world by this unnameable force. Now I think the interesting thing about this misconception is that it is often brought about by a misunderstanding of the foundation of Abrahamic religions, Judaism, mostly because the offshoots of the Judaic traditions have totally forgotten this or completely ignored it. The God in the bible is God, but one might not consider it to be YHWH, in that YHWH has compassion for all things, it might also be said that YHWH treats all things like straw dogs, in that it's compassion is not from good or evil, but founded upon the principle of equanimity and a greater purpose that is unknowable by man. This is why YHWH can allow good men to die and bad men to prosper, because ultimately the will of YHWH is not will at all, but the way of the universe. Just to clarify, here's a quote that might be of interest to people regarding Ein Sof (which is a term used to describe the creation force, or Godhead, not necessarily the God that is talking in the Bible), "Ein Sof is a place to which forgetting and oblivion pertain. Why? Because concerning all the sefirot, one can search out their reality from the depth of supernal wisdom. From there it is possible to understand one thing from another. However, concerning Ein Sof, there is no aspect anywhere to search or probe; nothing can be known of it, for it is hidden and concealed in the mystery of absolute nothingness." -David ben Judah Hehasid Now, if one didn't know any better, you might think this was a discussion about Tao or Brahma. Just something to keep in mind, which is that the foundation of almost every major religion is predicated on the notion of nothingness, and that this nothingness is not fathomable by men, but is mysterious and completely beyond comprehension or logic, in other words, it can only be experienced through a spiritual connection with Tao, Brahma, YHWH, etc. An important thing to remember is that, much like Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, Judaism has different sects and certain sects believe things others don't. To use a term like mainstream robs us of some of this understanding, because of what we consider mainstream. In other words God as it is understand by a Jew is very different from God as he is understood by a Christian. I get a kick out of this "being different" thread, because most of the stuff that's taught by Buddhist and Hindus is also taught in Judaism, yet because it is seen as the foundation of Abrahamic traditions, it's discarded or ignored. So I would say, if you're going to follow religions or criticize them, at least take the time to understand them before you criticize them. Judaism at its root is filled with as much compassion as any other tradition out there and to say that it is the cause of the West's current disjointed nature of self is really not the whole truth, in fact it would be better to blame Plato and the other Greeks, for it is their general philosophies that caused much of current malaise. Aaron Edit- Just another point of fact, in Judaism Man is not made in YHWH's image, simply because, as previously stated, YHWH is unfathomable... that's a Christian misconception predicated upon Zeus and the Greek Pantheon. Also the notion that one's actions effect YHWH differs depending on who you talk to, one Rabbi will say that man's actions cannot effect God, the other believes that we can ask beings to intercede on our behalf (angels for instance), but most don't believe that our actions in the physical realm, sinful or otherwise, have any real effect on YHWH. The commandments and Torah were essentially God's instruction to the Jews on living a moral life, but morality itself was something that had no effect on YHWH. Also, you can find most of this on Wikipedia if you take the time to look.

I've seen reincarnation pop up in other topics, and I really wanted to discuss it without taking it off-topic in those other threads. What I was thinking is that it would be nice to share our understanding and experiences regarding reincarnation. Since I started the thread, I'll get things going with my own brief understanding. I've already given the long story before, so rather than type it all over, I'll just quote it... Anyways that's the skinny on my own view and experience. I know it's way out there and I have no way of proving it. You don't have to believe me, nor do I try to pose this as the one true account of what happens when we die, it's just my experience. With that said, I'd like to hear what other people have experienced. If you have a view on reincarnation, an experience, or just want to share your own ideas, feel free. I look forward to hearing what other people have to share. Aaron

The picture was taken at 8am when the sun is still relatively low to the ground. The effect was most likely due to a reflection of light off a surface that caused your own shadow to become elongated, I say that because your ears are suffering from the same thing as the crown on your head. I'm pretty certain it's not a mystical occurrence. Aaron

The picture was taken at 8am when the sun is still relatively low to the ground. The effect was most likely due to a reflection of light off a surface that caused your own shadow to become elongated, I say that because your ears are suffering from the same thing as the crown on your head. I'm pretty certain it's not a mystical occurrence. Aaron

This thread was started to prevent the continual off-topic discussion occurring in the Being Different thread. The nature of this off-topic discussion revolves around the necessity of religion and philosophy. If you would like to learn more, please refer to that thread. Aaron

Hello Dwai, I'm a bit beat so forgive me if I'm don't say much this time. Thank you for responding. Here's my response to your points. I think this is very much as it is in the United States. We tend to forget that the majority of self identifying Christians rarely attend church on a regular basis, but only during holidays and such. Also many of our holidays are religious based as well, Christmas and Easter being the most identifiable, but Halloween being a good example of another religious holiday that was made secular. When one examines this notion in this sense, then one will find that India and the United States (Western world) are not that far apart. My point in regards to morality and ethics, is that most are heavily entrenched within religion. For instance masturbation, coveting your neighbor's wife (i.e. admiring her beauty and fantasizing about having sex with her), and even marriage are ethical ideals that are propagated by religions. Most of our moral codes come from religion, whether Hindu, Christian, Islam, or Buddhism. I think that this is also present in the Western world as well, only the fundamentalists tend to try to direct their children and others towards a religion, and only the ultra-right fundamentalists go so far as to try to convert people to their own religion. I will admit that it is more prevalent in the West. I think this is the way it should be for most people, so I wont disagree with you in this regard. Again my message isn't that religions should be outlawed, but rather that people shouldn't be forced into practicing them by social pressures. In reality I think very few people raised Hindu are going to decide when they get older to become Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists, simply because they have a certain construct of what is right and wrong already laid down in this regard. My main point is that being rid of these constructs is the only way for us to really identify the truth, that so long as we allow a construct to dictate the truth, then we will never be entirely sure of what the truth actually is (or in my view isn't). I'm also very fond of Vedanta philosophy and I personally feel more akin to it than other religions, simply because I think it glimpses the truth more than any other religion or philosophy. I think most Westerners gravitate towards Buddhism (and perhaps Taoism to a lesser extent) simply because they are more palatable to the Western psyche. What I would ask is if you really mean "I want a trumvirate", rather than need? If so how does this change the notion of the necessity of religion? Thanks again for your response. I think we are having an excellent dialogue and if at any time you feel I am not addressing a point you feel is important let me know and I'll get back to you on it. Aaron

I don't see any disrespect in asking for validity in regards to someone's claims of enlightenment. Lighten up, or maybe I should say, "enlighten up." Hah... sorry, couldn't help myself. Aaron

Well that's not any good. I'm not trying to win, I'm just pointing out what I believe. I'm disappointed that the conversation has ended here, but if you don't want to continue, I understand. Also, thanks for the conversation regardless. You're insight has given me much food for thought. Aaron

Hello Jetsun, I think what you'll find is that most authentic schools are underground because they threaten the mainstream religion itself. The destruction of these schools almost always occurred by the same religion they occupied. The reason was that they almost always taught a reverence for the practice and not the institution. That's off topic, my point is finding these schools today is nearly impossible because most are run as secret societies and they aren't about to let the media, general public, or outsiders in, simply because if they do they risk being attacked once more. If someone is offering a "genuine" school, then I would be suspicious. It doesn't mean you can't try it out, but one should invariably look deeper than just the surface. Claims are fine, but in the end those people practicing true mystic schools (which is what I believe you are after) are not going to just advertise on the internet. In this case, as Pie Guy has said, the master will always find the student and not the other way around. Aaron

First off, I'm not sure why you keep inferring that I am saying religion is bad, I'm not. To clarify, I'm saying they're unnecessary. In regards to the constructs of the mind, thoughts are every bit as real and a part of who we are as our physical bodies are, that's why religion can be so damaging, because if one is entrenched in it's dogma it actually effects our body, mind, and spirit. This is subtle point many people miss and you make a valid argument in regards to nama-rupa, but what you're missing is the idea that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. It's sort of like looking at something underneath the surface of the water, the darker the water gets, the harder it is to see. Nama-Rupa is essentially the darkness in the water, the cloudy part that prevents us from getting a clearer picture of who we are. We can't minimize the effects of nama-rupa through contemplation and introspection, because it only creates more murkiness, the only way to really see through it, to clear the murkiness is through the complete cessation of thought, the stillness of the mind. Once you still your mind you'll find that all those dark murky constructs floating within the self settle to the surface and then you can have clarity and see the self for what it is. If you have any doubts in this regard ask your teacher about this and I'm sure they'll give you the same explanation I have. When I say that these constructs aren't real, I mean in the actual physical sense, that these abstract notions have no effect on our ability to navigate the physical world. In regards to navigating the spiritual world, well then they simply stir up more murk to clutter our self-perception. Absolute truths are probably the worst offenders in this regard, because they only exist within the constructs themselves, in the totality of everything they simply are neither true or false, but rather simply are. So a wise man doesn't say something is absolute, because in order for it to be absolute, it must also be finite, since each thing is connected. To make this idea clearer I will use an example I've used before: TRUE--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FALSE When one looks at the above example, they will see true and false on either sides of a spectrum, but this is merely an illusion, in fact true and false exist together as one thing. Our decision to make something true or false is completely subjective. The apple is red. Well most of us would say this is true, but can it be true for someone incapable of seeing red? Is red even a valid description of it, or merely one that we have decided to give it for convenience sake? In actuality, upon close examination we find the surface of the apple is mostly red, but there are other colors there as well. We've decided that the statement is true based on the notion that since the apple is mostly red, then describing it as red is fine. Now I mention this because this point is very important to grasp if one is intent on self introspection and that point is that it is only when we give up the notion of true and false that we can begin to see through the frameworks that have been provided for us. When one examines religion we find true and false nearly everywhere. There is reason for this, because the more you categorize a code of thought or conduct, the more you control someone. Most people don't understand that truths are the most devious weapon of the righteous, they oftentimes take something that seems logical as truth without even questioning it, simply because our social indoctrination makes us susceptible to it. In regards to absolute realm, it is important to view it within it's context... lets use the line again- SUBJECT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OBJECT Now in this scheme we can see that the subject and object are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but they are still the same thing. You cannot have a subject without an object and visa-versa. In order to understand the subject we must understand the object and how the two are one. An example of the human being is excellent in this regard. The Subject could be deemed the mind, the awareness that perceives the object, the body. Now because of our way of viewing things we immediately believe that these two things are separate, but in reality they are the same thing. The subject cannot exist without the object, first, but even more so, the subject is only viewed as separate because it has been told to view it as so because it has been taught to. I could go deeper into this idea, but I think that is enough to make my point. Now, so this isn't completely off the topic of the necessity of religion, the notion that religions are necessary to understand any of these things is ludicrous. In fact anyone can perceive these things on their own and come to a deeper awareness of self, as well as an awareness to what reality actually is, their connection to all things, it just requires practice. That is my point really, that religion and philosophy is unnecessary, that the only thing required is introspection and self-discovery. It's late, so I'm stopping there. I know I haven't addressed all your points, if you have something you feel I must absolutely (pun intended) address, please feel free to ask. Aaron

Hello Bob, I wasn't ignoring you, I just passed over your post. First I believe the the human body, spirit (which I consider the soul), and mind are one, differentiating between the three is useless, because they're all a single being (which by proxy is also everything). Much of what I have said in response to Dwai in subsequent posts after this comment responds to this question. So my answer is simply the natural state of being, in other words all of these states, since effecting one effects the others as well. Aaron

Thanks for this post. I wouldn't disagree with what he said. Aaron

There is a great deal of depth to what I'm saying, you're just ignoring it. The fact of the matter is that nothing you've said has countered my argument. You didn't even bother answering the question. I know it's a tough question, but I find when I pose it to people they tend not to answer simply out of fear, fear that the framework upon which they've laid their lives upon might be fallible. I am not making a presumption based on superficial analysis, read wikipedia and numerous other books and you'll find the same message. I'm not the first to come up with this notion, nor will I be the last, because the first thing that most people realize when they do break the chains of faith, is that faith is what has held them prisoner. Buddha himself said the same thing I'm saying, the only difference between my message and his is that people decided to worship him and raise him up on a pedestal. Did you know Buddha never admitted to being divine, so why did people decide to make him divine? Well the fact of the matter is that the people didn't do it so much as the rulers did. Buddhism is the perfect religion to spread to the masses, because it emphasizes compassion and passivity. The same goes for Taoism and other philosophies. The fact of the matter is that compassion is fundamental to our original nature, but religions distort it into an act that one commits to receive something. The highest form of compassion is the kind that is done without regard to self, that is compassion that thrives from original nature. It might surprise you that many of my ideas stem from Vedanta, in particular Vedanta minus the dogma and scripture, and rather just the fundamental ideas. There is nothing wrong with ideas mind you, but as anyone who has studied Vedanta knows, ideas are not who we really are. If one pursues the act of introspection and meditation, then eventually, I would say invariably, they will touch upon their original nature at some point, whether in a flash of light or a gradual realization, they will begin to see themselves as who they really are, rather than who they've been defined to be for so long. My way isn't the way, it's just a way. I encourage people to find their own way, one that involves understanding who they are and how they were formed by the constructs that society has created. At one time we wandered the world, taking what we needed and moving on when things got scarce. The change in our psyche as a society and culture came when we stopped being satisfied with what we needed and instead pursued what we wanted. The same can be said for spirituality or the desire to know the mystery that eludes us. At one time we all knew that mystery, but the gradual change in how we behaved necessitated a change in how we believed. With that necessary change from a nomadic existence to an agricultural existence there came a gradual excess that occurred, and as we often do, we found a way to deal with it, greed. Religion itself isn't evil or good, as I've said, but it isn't beneficial anymore. Steve's quote is an excellent example of this, but if you look even deeper, look at the amount of suffering and abuse that occurs in the name of religion, you'll find that he majority of this abuse is perpetrated directly by the religious leaders. Can good come from religion? Of course, but that isn't my point, my point is whether or not we need religion to satisfy our worldly concerns. In regards to faith, there is a very big difference between accepting that a map to a city may be correct and accepting that if I become enlightened I will be free of the dharmic cycle. As far as karma goes, I think it's you who might be a little off on the concept. When asked why the last tsunami killed so many people in Thailand a monk replied that it was because the people of that region had developed so much karmic debt, not because an earthquake occurred that shifted the tectonic plates causing a sudden displacement in the ocean. So should I accept that the tsunami occurred because the people had done bad things in their past life or that there was an earthquake? I think the answer is simple. Karma is a crutch that allows us to shirk our responsibilities in this life, by blaming them on a previous one. The irony is that I believed as you did for quite a long time, but it wasn't until a recent period of awakening that I began to see religion and philosophy for what they are. We could go round and round on this topic, but the fact of the matter is that my point of view wont change. As an aside, I often times encourage people to study the Tao Teh Ching and other philosophies, but I also remind them that they are merely ideas, that true awareness comes from experiencing the original nature of one's self. That is the most important message I can share with people, examine who you are without any preconceived ideas. If you do it long enough, you will eventually see it. It start with silencing your mind, but it ends with an awakening of the soul. Aaron

Actually I may be older than you. This isn't juvenile behavior, most juveniles aren't anti-religious, rather they're ambivalent or hyper-religious. Also I don't have an obsessive dislike of religion, you saying that doesn't make it so. I just see it for what it is and you see it as something else. This is what I call redirection in lieu of an actual response. You actually said "Karma is Karma", but never alluded to it being subjective in nature. Karma is nothing more than India's answer to heaven and sin. You must be good and you must break the chains of Karma and suffering. Are you saying that you can't see how this concept helps to keep the masses in line? If you read my response to Serene, you'd understand that returning to original nature has nothing to do with being rid of conceptualized responses, but rather understanding them for what they are. Religion isn't real, it's not objective, it's a subjective conceptualization that has absolutely no basis on reality. That's my point. Everything you find in most religions is dependent on faith, rather than an objective analysis. I do not see anything right or wrong in being different. It is neither good or bad. I've spent some time (decades in fact) coming to understand what I have and I doubt I'll change my mind anytime soon. It's only until the last few years I've become brave enough to break the shackles of faith and see the world as it is, rather than how I've been told it is. As for dogma, there is nothing dogmatic in telling people not to blindly follow dogma. There is no good or bad, right or wrong, there is no righteous or sinful, there is only me and you. See yourself for who you really are and see me for who I really am, then you can understand everything you need to understand. If you can answer this question for me and if you can do it satisfactorily, I'll happily become religious again, what does your religion offer you in this world that you can't achieve without it? Now once you've answered that, perhaps the next best question is, what does it take from you and what does it give you? You don't have to answer the second question, but I think it's a good thing to examine. Aaron

Yeah, yeah, yeah... same song, not even a different dance. The really funny thing is that you have a teaspoon of knowledge and think it's a gallon. You might want to consider actually talking to someone who knows about this stuff, rather than believe the little bit that you've learned in your short young life can equate to wisdom. At least wait to proclaim your greatness til you're out of your teens. Aaron

I'm glad you say "sure" because that at least means there is a chance for you to see otherwise. Returning to your original nature does not mean that you abandon and discard this notion of self, but rather that you look past it and see what exists without it. It is when you can see what exists without it that you can then begin to see the true nature that exists within you and the intrinsic connection you have with everything that exists. Why do you believe this is necessary to become aware of your original nature? Because someone has told you it is. Is this your experience? That is a good question. My goal is to try to make people aware that there is an answer beyond religion, that one can be spiritual without joining a religion or following a preordained philosophical path. We each have the ability to achieve a state of awareness without direction from anyone. There is no harm in receiving direction, but one should always remember that direction lead to specific destinations. If one tells you that this destination is holy, true, good, and righteous, it doesn't make it so. Good and bad are just subjective terms. The first key to true introspection is to give up this notion of good and bad and examine yourself for what you are. If you can achieve this, then you can begin to see how the you that you are was formed, and then see the you that you were from the beginning. When you can see the original you, then you will begin to truly understand your original nature. If I do, I'll take a look. I hope life is treating you well. Aaron