Aaron

There is no difference (at all) between Catholicism and Buddhism, nor Taoism and Islam, when they are practiced as religions. The basic purpose doesn't change, only the premise. One desires to save the soul so they can ascend to heaven, the other to break the cycle of karma/dharma so one can be free from suffering. In both cases we are taught that there is something wrong with us, that we're flawed, and that's the issue I have. If you don't think Buddhism has dogma, then what do you call the four noble truths, the eightfold path, sidhis, skandas, etc. Hinduism is the same, although Vedanta at its core has the potential for the least dogma. As for karma... it's not so cut and dry as karma is karma. Karma is the accumulation of one's prior actions and by definition can be good or bad. The baby in the bathwater isn't real, it's just plastic, and hence is only valuable to those who see it as such. There is no harm in throwing the baby out, if in fact it's not real to begin with. And that's the crux, religion isn't real! It's a conceptualized idea. It doesn't exist outside the confines of the human mind. Why must we form a conceptualized view of reality, in lieu of reality? Religions are not culture dependent. We know that religion, as we know it, was formed when men ceased to be nomadic and instead focused on agriculture as a means to survive. The increase in protein from these food sources allowed these cities to grow at astounding rates and soon they became kingdoms and empires. In order to regulate these communities and direct them away from the nomadic ways, they formed religions so that there was a set moral code that dictated acceptable behavior. Religion is a form of control and those religions that are successful are the ones that allow the leaders of a country to rule over it's people with the minimum resistance. As for diversity, diversity without religion is the only form of honest diversity, because a person becomes who they are, not through a social construct, but by the experience of self and the world that surrounds them. Religion is not the backbone of society. It isn't the heartbeat of music or the pulse of a generation, rather it is an outdated dogma that holds society back from advancing to a greater state of being. Again, I don't hate religion, but I see it for what it is. It can be good and bad, but the fact of the matter is that it's not needed. If anyone thinks they need religion then they should ask themselves a simple question, does this religion offer me anything beneficial in this life that I couldn't achieve without it? If the answer is no, then why do they follow it? Aaron

I think you haven't learned from your past mistakes, simply because you don't see them as mistakes. If you continue down the same path you walked before, don't expect to reach a different destination. Aaron

A few weeks ago I was arguing with someone about philosophy. I was getting very wrapped up in this argument when I suddenly had an epiphany, the argument I was having had nothing to do with me! What I mean is that the me that was having the argument wasn't the complete me, rather it was the me that was formed by the ideas and notions that I've learned from living in this world. The epiphany though, was that anything I said or the other person said, really didn't matter, because it made no difference in regards to who I really am. The nice thing is that since I had this epiphany I've found I can let go of a lot of discussions, because they just don't seem as important anymore. I think another thing that has influenced this understanding is my recent bout of physical ailment. Right now I have a toothache and earache, as well as a slight fever. The simple fact that I'm suffering physically helps me to put these philosophical conditions into place, or rather understand their real place in my life. The philosophy itself is useless, it is only action that gives anything worth. So debating about something I believe in is worthless, unless I am also applying what I am debating to my physical life (you might say it's a bit hypocritical as well.) In other words arguments are like fevers, only you can decide whether or not you want that fever to go away. My own desire is to become more in tune with my original nature. Part of this is understanding the mystery of mysteries, but part of understanding this mystery of mysteries, begins with understand exactly who I am and what is worth fighting for. Esoteric ideas are not who I am, but rather they constitute the facade I've created in order to interact with the world. Fighting over a facade seems silly to me, so for me I'll try and keep that in mind and focus more on what I can see is real. Aaron

If you aren't you, then who are you? Aaron

Hello Dwai, I hadn't noticed you'd responded to my post. I apologize for taking so long to respond. Some things to think about, first, in nature diversity doesn't involve religious dogma that has no practical purpose towards a person's physical well being. Most people are religious because they were taught to be religious early in life, or because they hope to find something in religion to alleviate some condition that they perceive as being abnormal. This can be death, unhappiness, or simply a need to belong. In the natural world animals don't worry so much about death, but rather staying alive. Animals become unhappy, but they don't seek some magic cure, they accept it and allow themselves to pass through it as naturally as possible. When they feel the need to belong they seek others that will accept them and if they can't find anyone that will, then they live their lives to the best of their ability. They don't do this because of some moral compass or social bullying, but rather because they are invested instinctively towards pursuing these things. Second, I'm not saying that everyone should pursue personal introspection, rather, I'm saying that the benefits of personal introspection far outweigh the benefits of religion and that religions tend to tell people that there is something wrong with them, whether it's a sinful nature, bad karma, or a disconnection with nature. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with us, except for what religion has helped to create. Man is not born with an innate desire to seek out religion, rather it is forced upon them, so my question is why force it upon them. I think the best course of action for any parent is to shield their children from religion until they become old enough to make a decision about it for themselves. In the meantime, as they are growing up, teach them to accept themselves for who they are, that they will have strengths and weaknesses, but that their weaknesses and strengths do not define who they are, but rather their actions do. If each of us can live life with the simple idea that we will do no harm to ourselves or to others, then we will have a much greater chance of bringing the next generation into a world that actually is a better place to live. Sadly, most religious people are more intent on "saving" people and "enlightening" them, than they are actually helping them simply for the sake of helping. That speaks volumes about religion in my opinion. As for diversity, do you really think their wouldn't be diversity without religion? There would absolutely be diversity, only the people would be diverse because they were following their own original nature, rather than what was constructed for them by society. Aaron

I think what you'll find, ultimately, is that when they remove the cdrom, that you'll also have to pay for a subscription to the xbox internet service in order to download games. First month will be free though. Playstation will do the same thing. It's all about milking people out of as much money as you can. I loved my Atari. Aaron

If you examine the language and style of the Hua Hu Ching, it is very different from the Tao Teh Ching. And yes, if you want to find a hybrid form of Taoism that fits Buddhism as well, then it's a great way to go, but I don't think many educated scholars would consider it to be written by Lao Tzu. That's my point, that these passages really aren't quotations from Lao Tzu, but rather Buddhist propaganda. I would suggest that you read up more on Tantra as well, it's not about attachment, but rather awareness. You seek to find the spirituality in all of your actions, rather than in just a brief period of practice. Aaron

I just wanted to add, that I really do not want to see this topic die. I think it's a valid discussion, the points I've made aren't meant to take the discussion off track, but rather make people aware of the texts being sited by V Marco and the intrinsic differences between each religion. Enlightenment itself is so misunderstood by most people, that I think even trying to grasp the concept is overwhelming for most. I've actually started an enlightenment topic myself once or twice, but I'm learning from my mistakes, because inevitably you're discussing something that is completely subjective and I doubt will ever gain any kind of general consensus among everyone, even the Eastern Traditions. With that said, I'll toot my own favorite topic of late and remind people that enlightenment doesn't require a tradition, that it can be found through internal and external inquiry by most people who diligently seek it. I say most because there are some people that will never understand it. Anyways, I hope this topic continues, because it is a worthwhile one. Aaron

Codependency is the unnatural dependency one feels towards another person. In most cases both people involved are codependent, because a person with a natural dependency on others will flee from a codependent relationship because the person seems too clingy, needy, bossy, etc. Codependency's root is in control and most people that have codependency issues are from unstable childhoods. The lack of control that one felt during their early childhood manifests in a need to control others, either passively or overtly. In most cases it's a bit of each. If you're wondering if you're codependent ask yourself how comfortable you are with the person you feel codependent towards and how much freedom you allow them in their lives? Do you get upset when they're out too late? Do you try to dictate how they should live their lives, because you know what's best for them? Do you care for them, even when they're abusive towards you? These are just a few questions, but the overall answer lies in how much you interfere with their own life and by proxy, how much you allow them to interfere with yours, another form of control. I hope that helps to answer your question. Aaron

Alright, first nearly everything you need to know about the Hua Hu Ching can be found on Wikipedia, so go there and take a look, second if you look at the time that the text was written, it's around the same time that the first Buddhist missionaries arrived in China. Prior to this arrival there is no documented evidence that Taoists attributed many of the Buddhists qualities to Taoism that they do today. Absolutely none. If you'd like to point out some, I'd be happy to agree. Alright, there was one text, the Hua Hu Ching. (See what I'm saying?) It's not an authentic document in my opinion and most Taoists scholars don't take it seriously (i.e. that it was written by the same author of the Lao Tzu / Tao Teh Ching). There's a reason there are hardly any translations of it, and it's not because it's widely respected guide to esoteric Taoism (that would be the Secret of the Golden Flower, another pseudo Taoist text), so if quoting it makes the Buddhists happy because they can say, "oh look they aren't that different after all. We can all be Buddhist-Taoists!" Well that's fine, but the reality is that the focus of Taoism is on attachment to this world and the focus of Buddhism is detaching from this world. One finds communion through seeing the Mystery in all things, the other finds enlightenment by realizing that everything is an illusion. Now to end this short little diatribe, I would like to add that prior to Buddhism in China, you don't hear the notion of enlightenment in Taoism, rather you hear about immortality through Taoist alchemy, internal and otherwise. Even then they are somewhat vague on what this immortality really means. As an aside, I don't see one tradition as any more beneficial than the other, so I'm not pointing this out in order to diminish one or the other, but rather make a point, that everything stated as fact, isn't necessarily so. Many Buddhists use the Hua Hu Ching to convince others of the similarities between the two, but you never find Taoists doing that, why would that be? Think about it. Again, this isn't to diminish one or the other, but to clarify the differences between the two traditions. Aaron edit- As an aside, it can't be dismissed that Taoism has also had a profound influence on Buddhism in China. This is evident in the many different schools of Buddhism that have developed over the last 1,800 or so years since the first missionaries arrived, but perhaps most importantly it can be seen the type of meditation practiced by the Northern Ch'an Buddhists, which was essentially the integration of Taoism meditation to Buddhist thought. Shen-Hui, who is widely regarded as the founder of Ch'an Buddhism, hailed from the Wudang Mountains, which was the home of the Wudang school (clan for all you hip hop fans out there) of Taoism. The style of meditation taught by Shen-hui is nearly identical to the style of meditation taught by the Wudang Taoists, Wu Ji. In fact it would be more fair to say that Taoism has had a greater impact on Buddhist thought in China, than the other way around. Now to be completely honest, there are similarities in thought between Taoism and Buddhism, in particular the notion of compassion plays an integral part in both religions. I think many Taoists could appreciate the level of devotion to this principle that the sincere Buddhists practiced. Overall the similarities stop at one point, a very important one, which is the overall world view of each tradition, as stated previously. Anyways, this is getting a bit long, so I'll leave it at that. Also I have to admit that I'm not a scholar on the topic by any means, but I have read enough to form my own opinions.

If you are schizophrenic, then everything you've said makes sense, but only to you. The problem that exists is that reality is subjective and trying to direct every individual to enlightenment using the exact same means is not only impossible, but ridiculous. The Dalai Lama himself makes the point that Buddhism isn't for everyone, for instance, and I agree. There are many paths, not one single one. The enlightened, in my opinion, will not tell you they are enlightened simply because there is no reason for them to. Throw everything out of the room and begin to examine it for what it is. Is it a bedroom, kitchen, living room, or study? You can decide that, or you can just leave it as a room. Aaron

After I dropped back into meat eating, I only ate fish for about three or four years. One day I had fried chicken and I decided I was going to eat chicken as well, so for another two or three years I only ate chicken and fish, then I found out fish has a lot of mercury in it, so I cut back on fish and stuck to chicken. I had a pork chop one day and decided I would eat pork. A year or so later I was out and about and the only thing available were hot dogs and hamburgers, so I ate a hamburger and hot dog and decided I would eat hamburgers and hot dogs. Now I eat everything available, but 90% of the time I will only eat chicken and Ramen noodles. I actually eat ramen noodles for nearly every lunch I have. They say the sodium is bad, but I'm as healthy today as I was when I was thirty. This is the skinny though, you can eat WHATEVER you want, so long as you don't overeat. Eat small portions, healthy snacks, and you don't have to worry about your health. If you can't do that, then suffer with diets until you learn to. I'm always a bit perplexed with people who think we ought to be vegetarians, simply because nature has set us up to eat meat. Look at those pointy teeth in the front of your mouth, what do you think they're for? Definitely not for chewing veggies, that's what the back teeth are for. Aaron

I'm not sure why it's wrong to enjoy the taste of meat. I didn't eat meat because of personal convictions at the time, but I was willing to accept that I liked the taste of meat. Lets face it there's very few things in the universe that taste as good as chicken. (My diet these days is almost exclusively chicken, with a bit of pork thrown in the mix.) As far as TVP goes, it really depends on who you buy it from. There are companies that sell organic TVP that is every bit as good for you as tofu. If I find people are having problems with following their vegetarian diet, because they miss the taste of meat, or texture, then I will heartily encourage them to eat TVP. Back to the topic of whether or not it's wrong to enjoy the taste of meat, well it's sort of like the religious majority telling you it's wrong to think of sex. In the end it's enforcing moral dogma on a diet. Aaron

Actually I disagree. It doesn't work well for those people who aren't willing to eat the way they're supposed to. Potato Chip vegetarians are going to have a hard time of it, but from everything I've learned, everyone, diabetic, hypoglycemic, you name it, can eat a vegetarian diet and remain healthy. If the OP doesn't feel it's right to eat meat, why do you feel the need to give him an alternative that involves eating meat? He said he had quit for spiritual reasons, most likely his conscience tells him it's wrong. If he feels it's wrong, then he most definitely shouldn't eat meat. I have no issue with eating meat, but I do have issues with people who eat meat, but feel it's wrong. That's bad for their conscience. So if you feel it's wrong, the simplest thing to do is not do it. If you don't, then no problem. As far as vegetarian diets go, it's not that hard to be a vegetarian, in fact it's much harder to do the Atkin's high protein/low carb all meat diet in my opinion. I believe man is meant to eat mostly vegetables and a little meat. Aaron

I was a vegetarian for around eight years. I never had a problem with energy. I was taught to eat complete proteins. I ate brown rice and beans ALOT. Brown rice takes some getting used to (there is a reason most people eat white rice), but it is one of the best complete proteins you can find for the money. Another thing that helps is to find ways to convert your old favorite dishes to vegetarian dishes, either by substituting TVP (textured vegetable protein) or by substituting a vegetable (i.e. vegetable lasagna.) I am no longer a vegetarian. At one point I found it necessary, but later decided it wasn't. I wont tell you what is right or wrong in this regard, just do what you feel is right so long as it does not cause you any harm or anyone else. Aaron

If you look hard enough you can find something beneficial in everything. Even poison has its uses, that doesn't mean we're not better off without them. I hate it when people say, "it's not all bad." It's kind of like having your hand chopped off and saying, "it only hurts when I try to do anything." Aaron

I'm still astounded that you don't understand the significance of the phrase, "chop wood, carry water". Other than that, I agree with much of what you said. I would only suggest that you apply what you've said as a mirror first, before applying it to others. And thank you so much for being brave enough to define who is mediocre and who isn't. I forget, how does that old saying go? "How great is the ego that can tell the difference between 'eh' and 'oh'! You must fear what others fear!" Anyways, nice overall, but still a bit smug. Aaron edit- On a side note, many traditional Chinese Taoists do not accept the Hua Hu Ching as being authentic for several reasons. First it was written nearly 500 years after the death of Lao Tzu, second there are no other teachings attributed to Lao Tzu that speak in this voice, in other words it was written by a different author, and third, it has very little similarity with the teachings of the Tao Te Ching itself. The people that do accept the Hua Hu Ching as being an authentic document are most often the majority of Chinese Buddhist/Taoist/Confucianists who have no problem with attributing the qualities of Buddhism to Taoism. These same people like to claim that Lao Tzu left China and entered India to become or teach the Buddha. Historically speaking, Buddhist missionaries started to enter China around the time that the Hua Hu Ching was written, so it is quite possible that it was written by a monk who was knowledgeable of Buddhist practice and wished to integrate the two practices. (A big mistake since they are really as different as night and day!) So, the skinny is this- the Hua Hu Ching is a Book written by Buddhists who wanted to add Buddhist thought to Taoism. It is not Lao Tzu's actual teachings. What people need to pay attention to is the fact that almost all of your Lao Tzu quotes are taken from the Hua Hu Ching and are most definitely not the actual words or philosophy of Lao Tzu. There's a reason why there are several hundred translations of the Tao Te Ching, but only a handful of the Hua Hu Ching. One is an accepted manuscript, the other is routinely accepted as a fake. If you want me to cite the sources, I'd be happy to, but for the most part, just look on Wikipedia. Aaron

I've found you. Aaron

When is it too much or too little? Who gets to decide? You? Me? Lao Tzu? Buddha? I'm at a loss. Perhaps we should just do what we feel is right, remembering that our aim is to do no harm to others or ourselves? I really don't hate religious people, nor do I hate religion itself, because religion only really exists in the mind. It's very hard to hate an abstract concept. I try not to hate things at all, but I can still disagree, and even passionately disagree, so long as it does not detract me from my daily life, or my practice. If this means I'm attached to this idea, so be it, after all I'm not advocating detachment, but rather the dissolution of this notion of self we're taught to perceive. Again, my life is focused on returning to my original nature and for me, that does not occur with religion. I don't want to be told what truth is, I want to discover it for myself. So long as I accept everything I'm told as truth without examining the nature of things outside of my preconceived notions, I can never be sure if what I'm experiencing is the root of my nature, or simply what I've been programmed to experience. Even more important to me is remembering that these ideas are not the real me, but just a created persona that interacts with the world, the original me is absent of them. To understand my original nature, I must be free of all these constructs and stop learning new constructs. I must examine the world and my nature to understand the mystery of mysteries and understanding that mystery will allow me to understand my own original nature so that I can be like the newborn babe once more. Aaron

Sifusufi has simply fallen for the fascist propaganda that's being spread in the united states. The truth is that the USA was founded on the principals of individual freedom, not patriotism. When you understand that, then you can see how offensive your picture of the muslim women draped in the flag is, not because she's muslim, but because she should feel the need to drape herself in the flag in the first place. Aaron

The best book I've read on codependency is Codependent No More. I recommend it to everyone I meet with codependency issues. The root of codependency is found in the desire to please others at the expense of your own well being or happiness. The issue most people have is with healthy boundaries. You can't develop healthy boundaries by hearing platitudes, it takes work. I would suggest reading the book and going from there. Aaron

On a personal note, one of my best friends, who is a woman and yoga instructor, left her husband for one of her students. I've yet to hear anyone speak ill of her decision (especially me). She's much happier now and so is her son. The fact was her husband was an ass, she met someone younger and more kind, who paid attention to her. It's apples and oranges, but my point is that when one is instructing someone else, there is an intimate bond. You can't expect things not to happen, or the human heart to be dictated to by rules, order, and dogma, emotion always wins out in the end. Also, modern yoga has little to do with sex, but you ask any young man if they want to have coffee at the shop across from the yoga studio and they'll all say yes. Why is that? Aaron

This is really the crux of this entire thread, and a point everyone is missing. Men have an innate desire for sex, as do woman. Can you understand how allowing someone to have control over others on such an intimate level allows people to take advantage of others? Not you per se Cat, I'm just asking everyone in general. If you can understand this, then perhaps you wont look at him as being so evil and despicable. I'm CERTAIN many of the men on this forum would probably fall to the same weakness if put in that position. My answer to this dilemma is to not put people into this position. Women teach women, men teach men. That's a very simple answer. Men are not celibate, nor are women, that is a second answer. Sex is not treated as sacred, but rather as a way for humans to interact on an intimate level. This kind of crap never occurred in Polynesia, well not until Europeans and Asians showed up at least. Why is that? Because sex wasn't a sacred act of god, but a joyful act one shared with another. The Polynesians commonly had sex as a way of saying hello. No love was attached to it, love was thought to hold a much higher place than simply a physical act. You loved your loved ones, not because of the sex they could provide, but because they held a deep place within your heart. That's the problem here, our perverted concepts of sex and love. Once we sort that out, everything else can fall into place. Aaron

Hah... I don't hate religion. Where did you get that impression? I just see it for what it is. It's a way to control people. Must I continue to count the ways? There is no hate in it. I do not hate christians, buddhists, hindus, or muslims, nor do I hate religions either, rather I hope for a future free of it, when men and women can begin to live their lives according to a higher state of being, one intrinsically tied to their original nature. You call it irrational rationality, but I call it an intuitive understanding of a harmful and manipulative ideology, one that is ingrained within society. Lao Tzu agreed with me and stated that it was one of the lowest forms of virtue, so I'm not alone in this respect. Go ahead and try to mar my comments with impressions of spite and hatred, but you wont find it. Two weekends ago I spent the night around a campfire with thirty hardcore Christians. They spoke of Christ and prayed and I never said a thing against them. There are some people ready to hear what I have to say and others that aren't. That's the fact of the matter. If you're ready you'll understand, if you're not you wont. It's as simple as that. I wont be quiet to appease those who aren't ready and forsake those who are. It's really as simple as that. Aaron

I never said it makes it right or wrong, you're implying a moral context there. I am much more concerned in whether his actions harmed himself or someone else in an objective evaluation. Yoga is every bit as much a part of religion as any other institution. This is no different than buddhist paying for instruction from a rinpoche. The fact that there is no organized sect within Yoga, doesn't mean it's not an organized religion, it is very much so, in that it has an organized ideology, code of ethics, etc. If you choose to exclude it from the list of religions, that's fine, but I would like some documentation regarding how it is different. This man offended society, certainly, and he obviously caused harm, which is harmful, but in the same light, was it entirely his fault? Did the people he sleep with agree, then suddenly claim innocence later? Don't be so quick to judge is all I'm saying. He is just a human being, so treat him as such. There was nothing that made him special, people chose to treat him that way. Again, the problem is not the individual but the institution. If a man kills another man, do we just blame the knife or hand? Do we just blame the arm? No we blame the whole man, and in this case the whole man is the religion, practice, and person. They all three had a part in this, whether intentionally or not. Aaron