Aaron

Hello Scotty, I understand that it's normal for people to get shocked, but I tend to get shocked very often. I've gotten used to it for the most part, in fact it's not until the last few days when I've gotten shocked touching my keyboard twice that I started to worry. I did notice that the area my finger touches is close to a wire mesh covering the speakers for my laptop, so it could just be that I'm getting shocked when I touch it. I will take measures to ground myself next time just to be certain that it's me and not my computer. It could very well be that I have a short someplace on my laptop, but better safe than sorry. I'd hate to have my computer get fried because of this. Aaron

First I want reiterate that I'm positive it's not mystical in any sense, in fact if anything it's probably an environmental or biological condition. I'm 99% certain I get static shocks more than other people, because I can be out an about with the same person and get shocked several times when they don't get shocked once. Again I really can't wear watches with batteries, LED watches for instance, because they tend to stop working for me. I normally buy windup watches because of this, even then I get a rash if they have a metal backing, so in most cases I never wear watches or when I find one I can wear I buy a wristband that covers the metal backing. I wasn't insinuating that I had psychic powers or anything like that, I was just simply stating I get shocked a lot and I have problems with some electrical appliances. If anyone has issues with believing this, that's fine, but please refrain from making this a "you're just saying that 'cause you want to feel special" thread. Aaron

I never claimed to have any control over it, and I don't think it's something that can be controlled, that's just silly. My request was for people who might have had some dietary advice or perhaps advice regarding clothing, practices, etc, that might reduce the incidence of shock. This is my point though, John could've easily said, "Maybe you're just thinking you get shocked more than other people because you're not aware of how often other people get shocked? It might be more common than you think and the issue is really that you pay more attention to it than other people" rather than his insulting tirade. His choice of course, but it's indicative of his own personal issues. Aaron

This makes no sense to me. What are you actually saying here? Are you saying that people are incapable of deciding what's best for themselves, that we need people to decide that for them? If so, who decides? My personal opinion is that there are a lot of idiots out there, but there are just as many decent people. If society allowed groups to exist and work together based on their own specific beliefs and mores, rather than a consensus of everyone, then what you would find is a world with very little hate and strife, one that worried more about what was happening to them, rather than how others were living their lives. Aaron

So you just disregard anything you don't perceive as having value. Well that explains a lot. Get out of here with your passive aggressive bullshit. Aaron

No, it's just I've never gotten shocked touching my laptop before, so I'm worrying I might actually cause harm to my computer. Aaron

Hello John, Man you're really a bit of an ass aren't you? I mean I've told people they were off about something in the past, including you, which I think is the reason you've taken this pot shot at me, but I've never seen you respond to anyone else in this manner before, so I think this has something to do with a personal issue you have with me, rather than an honest reply. So lets look at this scientifically and objectively, I get painful static shocks about two to four times a day, on dry and humid days it can occur once an hour, which I'm guessing is more often than other people, now unless I get a lot of people that say this is about how often it happens to them I'm going to assume this might not be delusional and egocentric? I'm willing to accept the street lamp thing or even the light bulb thing as being possibly a side effect of perception, but the static electricity thing most certainly isn't. See what you've done is taken your objective experience and assumed that it is the only experience, that others can't have another experience. You've taken the norm and decided that anyone who describes something that deviates from that norm is delusional or egocentric. You've essentially dictated normal and abnormal behavior, what is acceptable and not acceptable, and dictated your own beliefs, moral dogma, and ideology as being the only acceptable ones others should follow. Of course this is normal for most people, social indoctrination tells us to be suspicious of those people who claim to be different or don't fall into what we categorize as normal. I think, though, with much practice and personal reflection you might be able to reach a point in your own life where you won't feel the need to attack someone simply because they claim to experience something you don't believe happened or you believe was delusional. See the problem with your response had nothing to do with whether my experience was authentic or not, but rather your method of response. I'm not sure if you follow any specific practice, but what I might suggest is that compassion and tolerance are the essential foundation of nearly every religion and philosophy known to man and it might behoove you to begin to think about that when you decide to respond to others. Also sarcasm is the lowest form of discourse, simply because it is not only the most insulting and trite, but it also requires the least amount of mental exercise to perform, it's a lazy man's way of discourse. I would suggest that you examine your own response and the reason you felt the need to respond the way you did, then maybe work on those issues before you decide to interact with other people who might have questions regarding similar matters. Skepticism is fine, but it's never an excuse to be cruel or insulting to another person. Aaron

The basic rule for an anarchist society is that the people themselves determine what happens. It doesn't mean there aren't officials or government workers, it just means that the individuals wants and desires are important and reflective of the society as a whole. In other words there would be no senate or congress, it would be like the ancient Greeks, everyone gets together to vote and they decide as a community what to do. So if you have a community with mostly Christians, then their wishes would be reflected. The real danger with any society is that they attempt to enforce their wills on others, so the trick would be to find a way to enable each individual group to learn to allow others to live as they wish, regardless of their own personal wishes. Aaron

HAH! The first one was my favorite, then the geek meditation was second. What a riot! Thanks for the humor. Aaron

Very good points. I would say that we have enough translations of the Tao Teh Ching floating around now, that we can have a general idea of what was taught then and now. I think when one examines Taoism the easiest misconception is the idea of philosophical Taoism. This is primarily a Western idea and in China there is no separation of Taoism from traditional Chinese religious practices. One can even examine the Tao Teh Ching and see the cultural mythos present in the text itself, in particular the notion of spirits and also, if one examines the Chuang Tzu mythological creatures. It's easy for a westerner to discount much of this, but unless one actually understands the Eastern notion of nature, then they are missing out on a lot of the context. Aaron

There is no direct explanation as to why the universe was created in the Taoist philosophical texts. The religious side of Taoism follows traditional Chinese mythology, but most philosophical Taoists don't worry so much about it. I would say to the majority of Taoists it's not important why the universe was created as it understanding one's place within the universe. Now chapter 1 of the Tao Teh Ching says we can understand Tao by understanding the world around us and if you spend enough time looking at the world you see the cyclical nature of things, so one could say the universe was created because it was meant to be created, so that life could persist and exist. Aaron

I don't intentionally practice as a Taoist anymore. Like any other religion Taoism is practiced or not practiced, if you want to go into semantics fine. How is Taoism practiced? Well by following what's said in the Tao Teh Ching, never striving to be first, being compassionate, and frugal. Working towards being a good man and accepting the responsibilities accorded with being a good man (i.e. the good man is the teacher of bad men, etc.) I would happily go into detail regarding this if you're having problems understanding the concept. It's not as easy as going with the flow, in fact, like any other practice, it requires work and dedication. Those people who say, "how do you practice (NOT practice) Taoism?" Are usually the ones who haven't spent any length of time reading Taoist texts and rather see it as a lifestyle, which it isn't. I'm not even knocking Taoism so much, of the religions I know of, I think it's by far the least invasive to one's psyche and has a lot of benefits, but as a person trying to understand the world without pretense, I find that giving up Taoist philosophy is a requirement. Does that answer your question? Aaron

Ahh... well isn't this offensive? Why are you denigrating homeless people? Most aren't in that situation because they want to be. Aaron

I love this guy... in one video he has a wristwatch that's studded with diamonds around the band, the face, everywhere, probably costs around a hundred thousand dollars. Certainly proof of his enlightenment. I mean, if people aren't paying you to spout "wise things" then what's the point in teaching? I'm sorry, that was sarcasm, essentially I'm saying this guy is making way too much money for my comfort zone. If he's so detached, what the <bleep> does he need designer clothes, expensive watches, etc. for? Maybe he could donate all that wealth to the hungry and destitute, now that would be an excellent show of compassion. Oh wait, he is being compassionate! He's showing those people who have enough money how to find enlightenment! Or maybe he's just another smooth talker bilking those looking for answers out of money. Aaron

For around 20 years I was a Taoist and carried a little pocket sized copy of John C. H. Wu's translation with me wherever I went. I would often read it when I was bored. When I was a christian I carried a pocket sized copy of the New Testament with me, so I guess I just substituted one for the other. On a positive note, I'm well versed in the TTC, the negative is that I no longer practice Taoism, much of the time I spent studying it could be seen as wasted. Aaron

I think this thread is an excellent example of the egos at work on this forum. The original poster left because people started to do the very thing she stated caused her to be weary. Where is the compassion in persisting to act in a way that offends or disturbs another person? I'm not claiming innocence here, since I certainly have an ego and on more than one occasion felt the need to defend my personal opinion, but one thing I'm beginning to understand more and more is that this need to defend myself stems from my desire to protect my ego, rather than a sincere desire to bring compassion, liberation, and an end of suffering in others. The fact is that it's not really that difficult to behave compassionately, but many of us, either out of greed, anger, or whatever reason, choose not too. If we, including me, thought more about the consequences of our comments, rather than the "need" to say the things we do, I think that would go a long way towards learning to converse in a compassionate way with others. Aaron

Hello Sereneblue, I wanted to touch base on the whole insanity thing. I'm not entirely aware of what Nietzsche meant when he was comparing insanity in groups vs. the individual, but what I know from studying psychology is that insanity is based on culture, because the definitions of what constitutes insanity are based on cultural biases. A man hears voices that tell him that evil spirits are causing the drought, he tells a doctor and the doctor consults the diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders and find that the man fits the criteria for Schizophrenia. The man is put on a regiment of drugs to treat the disorder, drugs he'd rather not be on, but is essentially forced to take in order to fit into society and get treatment for his illness. Another man experiences the same thing, but lives within a tribe in South America. The tribe members are ecstatic, because this man has obviously been touched by the spirits/god/whatever. They have been told the cause of the drought. They look at the man, not as being dysfunctional or mentally ill, but as being blessed, in fact they treat him like he is special. This man never suffers from his condition, but rather is sought by others for advice and help because of his condition. Wikipedia has this to say about mental disorders: "A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological pattern, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context. The recognition and understanding of mental health conditions have changed over time and across cultures, and there are still variations in definition, assessment and classification, although standard guideline criteria are widely used. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), over a third of people in most countries report problems at some time in their life which meet criteria for diagnosis of one or more of the common types of mental disorder." When I read the above statement, which is what they teach you in Psychology 101, I see exactly what Nietzsche was talking about. Mental illness is something that is defined according to cultural perspective, so an individual cannot be defined as mentally ill, unless his behavior is contrary to society's mores and standards. This would lend one to believe that mental illness is not so much a biological condition as it is a cultural response to that condition. A person who is obsessive compulsive in the United States, could very well be perceived as fastidiously clean somewhere else. In the United States he/she may be encouraged to seek chemical treatment, but in another country they would most likely just ignore the person's idiosyncrasies. As far as what this has to do with Tao, I think it comes back to the idea of Virtue. Chapter 38 of the Tao Teh Ching addresses this by saying: Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue. Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity. Failing humanity, man resorts to morality. Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony. Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty; It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder. So essentially disorder occurs, not from a man's actions, but man's perceptions of those actions in a cultural context. The further wrapped up he becomes in culture and social mores, the more he finds himself trapped within that culture, hence mental illness is very rare in the individual, but common within the "groups, parties, and nations." I hope your doing well, Aaron

I had to leave my cats with my twin brother when I left my old home. He left them with my other brother who let them outside. Now keep in mind they're indoor cats and they've never been outside since I've had them, well you know what happened, they ran away. So for the last two months I haven't heard anything about them, but today I got an e-mail from my twin brother telling me that one of my other brother's neighbors is taking care of one of them and the other is hiding out down the street at an abandoned home. So Bebe and Boots are alive... honestly a tear came to my eye. Yes I am attached, I admit it. Is that synchronicity, well for me at least, or what? Anyways, yes Mewtwo, point well taken. Aaron

I was thinking about this earlier today, in particular how spirituality is slowly changed when it comes into contact with religion, in other words, the natural spiritual impulses we are born with are molded and shaped to fit within a spiritual paradigm, which essentially perverts and distorts those natural experiences and convinces us that what we are experiencing is a spiritual process, but in really it is nothing more than religious dogma. Part of this idea has to do with the a belief that we need religion. One argument you could make is that we need religion in order to fulfill some deep desire for security within us. My belief is that we don't need religion to do this, that left to our own devices we will develop a spiritual awareness of the world on our own. In essence there is no need for dogma or ideology to push us in the right direction, rather we will naturally follow the spiritual process within us that is there from birth. Much like a stream follows the valley to the river, then the river to the ocean. What I believe happens is that invariably we are told what the ocean is before we ever have a chance to reach it, and by doing this we are distorting the spiritual experience that is inherent within us and creating another experience, which is not spiritual, but rather intellectual, that creates a new path by damming those areas of spiritual inquiry, forcing us on a route chosen by an individual river. So the natural path through our own valley of spiritual awareness is never allowed to occur, and instead we are taken on a journey created and dictated for us by the beliefs, ideologies, and moral dogma of a particular religious or philosophical school. Because this often happens when we are still very young, most are unaware that it is even occurring or we might even come to believe that spirituality is not an innate quality, but rather one that must be taught, because of this erroneous belief we therefore never return to that unadulterated level of spirituality that we begin with. An example I used of this alteration was the belief of self. We teach children at an early age to identify parts of themselves as being separate from themselves, but at some point, if you grab a child's hand and ask what it is, they will think, this is me, but we correct them and say, no this is your hand. This is in essence the first step to our separation from our innate spirituality, because invariably we begin to view ourselves as separate from the reality around us and in feeling this separation we begin to have an natural need to return to the state of oneness we were born with. Rather than continue, I will leave the rest open to discussion. My main purpose for this thread is to discuss how other people feel about spirituality and its relationship to religion, whether there is an actual need for religious inquiry or whether one can meet their spiritual needs without a religious or spiritual (or cultural) identity. I look forward to hearing other people's ideas. Aaron

Apocalypse aside, what I'm beginning to understand more and more each day is that people oftentimes are more than happy to tell you how your religion or idea is bad, but they will rarely see any flaws in their own. This is precisely the reason why we need to remember to advocate religious expression and freedom of expression. Aaron

V Marco, I think you've misunderstood what Lao Tzu was saying. The fact that he clearly defines this in the first two lines of the beginning of the Tao Teh Ching and that you've missed this point leads me to believe that you need to study the text a bit more before you comment on the philosophy. Chapter One Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name. As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless: As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable. So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence: As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects. These two flow from the same source, though differently named; And both are called mysteries. The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence. - Lao Tzu, Tao Teh Ching, tr. John C. H. Wu So, Lao Tzu was saying that the Tao was ineffable and could not be discerned through the senses, but the tao (notice small case) of the world that we perceive can be talked about. If it helps think of Tao as translating roughly into "way". In regards to your religion and philosophy comment and your knock about my comment regarding chopping wood and carrying water, I think you're clearly being hypocritical here, what you really mean to say is that everyone is wrong except you. As far as the "enlightenend man" who snapped his fingers and brought a fish back from the dead, well that's a neat trick, but I'm sure David Blaine could pull it off flawlessly. Since a lot of modern illusion has been gleaned from Indian "mystics", it would be a safe bet that they knew how to pull this off too. For instance Blaine can levitate on the street with nothing around to support him. He can tear things up into bits after they've been written on and cause them to reappear, writing still intact. These were the staples of the "siddhas" of the time. Nothing remarkable, in fact anyone could probably pull off the fish trick with a little training. As far as ineffable goes, I would have to remind you that it is subjective, thus it has little meaning in the light of experience. So I say again, throw away Buddhism, Taoism, and all the other religions and philosophies, and start from scratch. Examine your life, what is you, where you began and what you were before you began and then you will begin to get some answers to your questions. Aaron edit- ChiDragon, I thought you would've been the first to quote Chapter 1, you must be getting rusty.

Hummm,...and what do tell is it really? Except for top posts, All my posts are reflections of the posts they respond to. Aaron is obviously a masochist, and thus the responses mirror back to him what he his giving. This post is a response to your sad comments of "hostility and aggression." Aaron believes that the Now is what his six senses tell him,...but we don't know your opinion,...for like Aaron, you choose ad homenim over reasonable content. Personally I could care less about your surprise of anyone not seeing this alledged hostility and aggression,...I stand by my every post as evidence that each response mirrors the post being responded to. Unfortunity, most are absorbed in little games, and as such are only interested in little games. Instead of Exploring the Now, the topic of this thread, they prefer to disrupt what they don't wish to understand. However, to explore the Now,...all that psychobabble must be let go. This doesn't happen because most rather cling to mediocrity. As Wilber said, "Human Potential movement got derailed and was replaced by this therapeutic self-expression, self-acceptence movement." http://www.thetaobum..._1entry322794 More redirection and self justification for one's actions, based on faulty logic and a misunderstanding of compassion. You say nasty things, not because you're "mirroring" but because you're pissed off, but then truly enlightened people don't get pissed off, so you have to justify your inability to be kind and compassionate to everyone regardless of circumstance. I ignored your hostility, not because I'm a masochist, but because it has no bearing on who I am. You can wish me a short life all you like, but it will have no bearing on whether my life is shorter or not, the only bearing on that is my diet, genetics, and lifestyle. I could say, "how dare you say such a thing to me!" But what does it change? Nothing. You are still locked into this idea that knowledge somehow leads to enlightenment, but it doesn't. Debate about the "now" all you want, but your new view isn't going to lead you or anyone else to their original nature. In closing, very little of what you say can be attributed to Buddha himself, but rather to devotees that came along several centuries later. Now if you could give me a quote from Buddha, not one attributed to Buddha by someone who came along 500 years later, but to Buddha, then I would say what you're talking about is related to Buddhism. Almost everything I've studied regarding Buddhism has to do with Buddha, Bodhidharma, or Zen, so my actual knowledge regarding Mahayana and Theravada is slim at best. I have read a great deal about what Buddha said, and from that knowledge I've come to understand that most people that came after Buddha bastardized his teachings. I don't think Buddha intended for his teaching to become the basis of an institutionalized religion. From what I know about what he said, I don't think he would've laid down the Ten Precepts for instance, nor do I think he would've been keen on how many of the later masters/teachers/monks describing enlightenment. Buddha taught freedom, the Buddhists teach reliance, plain and simple. Now what I can agree on is that one should not allow the idea of "Now" to influence their own understanding of "now", but rather that one's experience should shed light on it. That means that, in my opinion, you don't describe now, you don't define now, you tell others to investigate now and then if they choose they can come back and tell you what they've learned. That's the only way for someone to have an honest, unbiased understanding of "Now". That's what I was saying, not that you're wrong per se, because there is no such thing as right or wrong, it's subjective, but rather that it is better to allow someone to examine it unfettered by religiosity and ideology. Now if you could ever refrain from attacking people, then justifying those attacks by making snide comments you believe will get under the skin of those people you're talking to, then we could begin to have a discussion about this, but you just say, "NO! This is how it is, you don't know!" Rather than, I will think about this and get back to you. So what does your belief in now mean if you throw it out and examine now without preconceptions or beliefs, where do you go from there? Aaron

Finger point, finger point, name calling, circular argument... etc. This is the way you behave in a debate. You ignore those things you can't argue and focus on those that you can. Did Sri Aruobindo say "undivided light" or "light", that's just one example. As far as poking holes in your theories, I spent three or four replies poking at your idea of Now, but you failed to see the reasoning, and thus it was obviously wrong. I think the reason you hang out here is that you can't hang out on Buddhist forums because they would've given you the boot long ago. Taobums is more lenient when it comes to freedom of expression. You're absolutely right, I'm not interested in liberating people. Track my record and you'll find I've been saying a few things for as long as I've been around, one that morality is an illusion, that there's no such thing as good and evil, that enlightenment is experiential and any attempt to describe it is pointless conjecture, and that beliefs, religions, philosophies, and politics in particular lead people away from their original nature, preventing them from experiencing their original nature. Lastly what you're attempting to do is save people, i.e. liberate people, and I see no need to liberate anyone, because there is nothing wrong with people, rather what's wrong is the illusion that people are taught to believe that something is wrong with them. Also, I'm not the only one that's picking up on the quotes out of context thing, if I was I'd happily admit that I was wrong in that respect. In the end this doesn't matter to me so much, which is the reason I have two responses a day on average in regards to this and you have seven or eight. I just don't like seeing people suffer when they don't have to and your teachings, Buddhism, Christianity, and all the other religions and philosophies out there just propagate this suffering. I don't need quotes to point this out, just watch the daily news. If people need any kind of liberation it's liberation from all religion and philosophy. Again philosophy is the domain of fools and I would add religion as well. Don't take this as a personal assault on you, I don't dislike you in the least, if anything I feel for you, because I know how religion can screw with your mind. Maybe someday after you've spent enough time you'll see what I'm talking about, but unfortunately the more ego stroking the religious receive the less likely they are to recognize the folly of their ways. Aaron edit- Correction. I've only come to a view of religion and philosophy diverting one from their true spirituality in the last year or so, but I've viewed religion as an institution as being harmful for quite awhile. Just wanted to clarify.

The only reason you don't see the holes is because you never respond to them. You cannot prove the idea of undivided light, it's just your own theory regarding light. The quote at the end, does Sri Aruobindo say "undivided light" or just "light"? I'll bet you he just says light, not undivided light, but you take it out of context, add your own addendum and think everyone is going to be fooled into believing it. So tell me how what you're espousing even remotely corresponds to Buddhist teachings? You take quotes from Western Philosophers and attribute it to Eastern Philosophy and in so doing repeatedly take the quotes out of context. Anyone who spends any deal of time examining your arguments sees this, but you never respond to the criticism, rather you create circular arguments or attempt to push the conversation into an entirely new direction, so I ask you again, are you trying to create your own brand of Buddhism? That's a simple question that you haven't answered. If anyone here believes otherwise, please speak up, but I've spent enough time reading your posts and figuring out your modus operandi to figure that out. You are stuck on concepts that have never been proven or realized by anyone who has actually been attributed to achieving enlightenment or awareness. The quotes you do make are in most cases out of context. Perhaps this is the reason you've never published anything in regards to these topics. On a theoretical basis, undivided light is a fascinating concept, in particular when one thinks of the holographic universe, etc., but trying to apply it to a spiritual context, when it's never been explained or perceived by anyone thus far is silly. Just admit it's a theory and let it go at that, otherwise provide the factual evidence. Before I finish, let me ask you again, because I want an honest answer, are you trying to start your own brand, school, sect, of Buddhism? If not, then what school do you actually follow and provide detailed evidence of this, rather than out of context quotes. Aaron