Aaron

This has nothing to do with Taoism. You obviously haven't read the Tao Teh Ching if you want to attribute what you've posted here to the idea of Taoism or the Sage. I might recommend reading the actual text, rather than books about it. To be honest I'm not sure how you can even attribute this to Taoism. Some observations- you love to try to push buttons when people disagree with your ideas. I think it's the only way you feel you can compete on equal terms. In this case you are denigrating Taoism knowing it will evoke a response, then you can attribute whatever abysmal failure occurs as a result to other people's hostile response to your comments, rather than your own intellectual inferiority. I think the number of times you resort to name calling, finger pointing and labeling seems to indicate that you have an inability to accept that you've lost an argument and that you are emotionally invested in your arguments. I don't think anyone here doesn't see the sheer malevolence you exhibit when your feelings are hurt. The fact that you chose a thread that has much to do with diminishing the ego, to stroke your own to culmination, is not only puzzling, but a bit absurd. Before you continue to present your knowledge as wisdom, perhaps you will like this quote, since I think it speaks to you... "Have done with learning, And you will have no more vexation. How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"? What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"? Must I fear what others fear? What abysmal nonsense this is!" -from Chapter 20 of the Tao Teh Ching by Lao Tzu In closing I would love to see an end to this pseudo intellectualism being masqueraded as spirituality and religious idealism. Aaron

+1 for the Shakespeare quote and Hamlet no less. Aaron

V Marco, Could it be that your designing your own brand of Buddhism? Well I'm sure you wont answer this, you have a tendency to avoid comments that poke holes in your theories. Good luck convincing the masses to follow Marcoism. Aaron

Alright. you either don't read what I say or don't bother to pay attention. You put words in my mouth, make accusations, and seem to generally ignore everything except for what you want to respond to. Maybe someday you'll figure it out, but til then I hope you're happy as a Buddhist and apparently a hypocrite. Aaron

Sereneblue, I would discount much of what you hear about Buddhism on this board. Although I would suggest not studying Buddhism at all, but rather begin to inquire into who you are from your own experience, if you are hellbent on learning about Buddhism seek the advice of Matt Black or some others who seem to really exemplify the "spirit" of Buddhism. "Real" Buddhists do not argue or point out what is right or wrong, they simply practice. I see that most of the people I consider to be "real" Buddhists have migrated away from this forum or don't participate in these discussions, and I would suggest it is for a very simple reason, but rather than offend people, I will not say what that is, but rather leave it for you to decide. I'm not a Buddhist mind you, so there's no reason for me not to. If I do participate it's in the hopes I might shake someone out of this rigid need for ideology and belief systems, so that they might begin to experience things as they are, rather than as they are defined to be. Aaron

If I said I was enlightened, what would that mean? I say enlightened and you grasp an idea, a definition from what you've learned about it, attach it to the idea, and thus decide whether or not I am or am not, based on what you've learned. Be done with knowledge. So long as you search for enlightenment you will never find it. These answers you seek, the definitions you set down are not answers at all, there are no answers, just experience. Is there a now? Is there not a now? It doesn't matter. You seek something that can't be sought, because you have not lost it in the first place, you just don't see it, even though it is right there. Ahh... salvation, nirvana, buddhahood, these are all illusory, they do not exist, because there is nothing to save or transcend. You simply are and so long as you are not satisfied with being what you are, then you will seek to be something else and everyone who offers you something to help you alleviate what you believe is the disease of being, you will run after them seeking it, just like a miner who hears of gold. And perhaps when you find it, if you follow the path to the end and hold it, or not hold it, as the case may be, you may also find satisfaction, or find what you were searching for, but in the end that is illusory as well. You find the answer, but the world does not disappear. You ate, shat, and slept before, you will eat, shit, and sleep afterwards. Oh but now I see the dream, well the fact is you were never dreaming, rather you were simply living, and now that you see things differently, are you no longer living? There is no salvation or cessation from being the "you" you have become in this life. If you think the answer lies in "now" then you are misleading yourself. The problem with so many people on this board, and you included, is that you feel you must be teachers, but the fact is so long as you seek to be a teacher, you are never a teacher. We can only be students. Philosophy is for foolish people. It gives no answers, because the answers are temporal and transient, the only thing that will satisfy your curiosity is experience. When I say give up your beliefs, I am telling you that your beliefs are keeping you from experiencing the actuality of what we are. Go back and examine each and every idea that makes up "you" and tell me what you are. You can't do it, because the you that existed before you became you has no definition, it is an experience. Yet when you experience you before you became you, then you can begin to experience life and see everything that came afterwards with clarity and you will have no questions, because there will be no need for answers. Also, what's with all the name calling and finger pointing. If you want me to be a Christian, I'll kindly be a Christian, there's really no way for me not to be, because Aaron to you is a Christian, but what I would point out is that there are no Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or Jews, there are just people being defined by those so attached to the temporal, that they can't see them for what they really are. If you stopped defending yourself and trying to misdirect conversations when people start punching holes in your philosophy, perhaps you could begin to see that there is no such thing as truth or untruth, or now or past, there simply is what is. You're so fond of exercises it seems, so I would offer you one that might help, examine yourself and your children and tell me where you begin and your children end. Aaron

V Marco, Your record means nothing. You're missing the point entirely. You're stuck in this paradigm of "you", the V. Marco paradigm. These things you speak of are all you, nothing more. Now is now, then it is not now, then it is now. Is it all around us? Hmm. I would say that's not true in the least, Now is not us, but it is us. We learn to understand that now is not really there, yet we also learn that it is there. First there is the mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is the mountain. That's simple, most people understand that in their first month of studying Buddhism. In the same way we chop wood and carry water before enlightenment, then chop wood and carry water after enlightenment. I think what irritates me is that you're posing as a savior, the guiding voice leading those astray to salvation, when there is no need for salvation. There is no now, there is nothing to save. The now we experience, the senses that allow us to experience this world, do not fade once one understands this, nor do they fade when one experiences it, they persist as time persists, merely understanding the basics on an experiential or logical level does not change this. You brought up this topic because you believe that your theory of undivided light is infallible, that somehow you have understood something that all the men that have come before you have not, except for those few that you use to quote for those unfortunates such as me that seem to be caught up in self. Let me explain this notion of self to you clearly. The reason that you argue about this is because your beliefs are you, this notion of Now, the not-you, the idea of constant time are all concepts that come from V Marco, not the original you, but the V Marco that has been defined by society to exist, the V Marco that you gauge its worth by the concepts you've learned throughout your life. The original you does not need any of this, it exists not only in the now, but before the now, after the now, and without the now. That original V Marco is not worried about logical debate, because it has nothing to worry about, it's existence is set within the very fiber of everything and nothing. You think I don't understand what you're talking about, that I haven't had the fortune of experiencing it, but I have, I just realize it as being unimportant, that salvation, an end to suffering, are all tied to the "I" that we have created from our experience in the "Now", or if you want to call it, the past experience. Buddha couldn't give up this notion, this desire for salvation, so he set about teaching that guiding others to enlightenment is the highest and most selfless goal. Jesus, Mohammed, and many others came and did the same thing, but what I will tell you, not as a Buddha or Saint or prophet, but as a man, is that there is nothing that needs saving. We exist, enlightened or not, and if perhaps enlightenment shows it face to us, we will see that it has no face, but when that happens there is no joy or sadness, because in understanding the I that existed before Aaron, the You that existed before V Marco, we touch on nothing that has been divided from the totality of existence. When you argue and debate this, don't fool yourself into thinking it's High compassion, it's not, rather it's the "you" that believes that no-belief is necessary. I see this all as meaningless because I understand that I don't "NEED" any of this, because my needs are already met in regards to the "I" that existed before I was born, so instead I care for the needs that I must meet as the "Aaron" that came afterwards. When the time comes and "Aaron" no longer exists, then I will still be "I", hence no need to argue or save that I, because it can never be erased, nor remembered, nor forgotten. Aaron

I would ask that you give me the number of Monks, Rinpoches, etc. that have given their students the direct experience of Buddha or a cessation from Dharma (or for that matter an actual experience of Dharma). The problem with religions is that they hide under different guises, but delude people all the same. In order to truly understand who we are we need to be able to explore deep within ourselves and find that part of us that existed before we became Aaron, Mokona, etc. That requires giving up any and all beliefs we've accumulated since that moment. Aaron

Hello V, To be blunt, I wonder if perhaps you're a bit hypocritical. You attach so much importance to others giving up their own beliefs, yet you cling to yours so vehemently and deny when anyone calls you on it. The fact of the matter is that now is not important, unless you decide it is important. Now just is, that's it. You can try to logically define it, but the fact of the matter is that much of what you say is nothing more than a logical conclusion, the actual experiences you talk about can't be defined or explained in a corporeal sense, they are incorporeal experiences devoid of senses or thought and definition. When you grasp that, then come talk to me and we can go from there. Of course you can quote T.S. Elliot (which you've done twice that I've noticed so far, same exact quote), Ekhart Tole (I believe three times, but it may have been twice, same exact quote), and I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that you are clinging to your beliefs in Short Path Buddhism as much as the Christians are clinging to the cross, neither will bring you salvation however. Of course it's fine if you want to continue to live in that delusion if it makes you feel better, but if you really want to start understanding the nature of things, then what you need to do is understand the nature of who you are, and that starts with understanding the nature of the fear within you. By the way, the mountain is now, then it is not now, then it is now. Aaron

This topic is no more important than a bowl of pudding. Importance is something you attribute to it, not something it naturally possesses. So, if I'm hungry, then the bowl of pudding looks very important indeed, because it satisfies that hunger, however if I've eaten my fill, then I don't see much use for the bowl of pudding, at least not right now, so it doesn't seem very important at all. You seem to waver between three topics, the evil of any religion other than Buddhism, the undivided light that you believe constitutes everything in existence, and the lack of a present time. Now I'm not knocking you for that, those obviously seem very important to you, I'm just asking the question, are they really important or are you attributing an importance that doesn't really exist? If the former, then why? If the latter, then why bother talking about it anymore. In the old days, from what I understood, Buddhist didn't actively preach, they only taught people that came to them. It seems that many Buddhists in the Western world feel this need to proselytize in the Christian sense, rather than just let it be. Is it any wonder why many in the East look at Western Buddhists with this sort of amusement, like they were watching young children play a game of tag? Tag, you're not enlightened. No, Tag, you're not enlightened. Oh yay, we're all enlightened. Wait that isn't any fun, we're all enlightened except for Xabir, he's it. You guys do more harm to Buddhism than good, but you obviously fail to recognize that, or maybe you just don't care. As for me, that's fine, anything that keeps people from being sucked into a religion's ideology is a good thing. Hopefully your arguments will inspire people to see Buddhism for what it is, another belief system. Hopefully they wont get involved in it or they'll drop it and then begin to seek real awareness through their own experience. Aaron

And yet you still cling to the beliefs of Buddhism, dharma, karma, and all the other "blessed" theology which you quote like biblical scripture. So I guess according to what you're saying it's not religion you are opposed to, or beliefs, but the wrong beliefs, which you apparently are privy too. I would suggest that perhaps you should examine your own beliefs first, before you start hashing about other people's beliefs. Aaron

Xabir and V Marco, Will it help to point out now that neither of you will convince the other of your view or that you may be letting your egos pull you into a discussion that doesn't need to take place? What's the point in this discussion anyways? I'm not sure why this whole "Exploring the Now" thing is even important, especially since it seems to be a baited topic meant to draw people in so that they can be told they're wrong. Anyways, neither of you will listen and everyone will have this argument anyways. I'll just pop in now and again to let you know who's winning, since I'm sure, from what I've read of your comments so far, that's of some importance to each of you. Aaron

I can assure you that everything you say seems very arrogant and malicious indeed. Although Xabir may not be what he says he is, and I wont say he isn't, that's for him to decide, at least he's respectful in the way he talks to others and he obviously has a grasp of the nature of compassion. Perhaps, since his grasp of these things seems superior to yours, you should let your ego rest and listen, maybe some of what he's learned will rub off on you. Aaron

Hello K, It's much worse than what you read in that article. I'm not even atheist, more along the lines of agnostic, but I was driven from the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous and lost many friends because I refused to believe in an "Intelligent Higher Power", even if I did agree that there could be a unifying force. Remember the United States of America was founded by religious fundamentalists, even if a few of the founding fathers may have been Agnostic (and even fewer were Atheists, Benjamin Franklin being the most famous). The problem is that it's become more invasive with time. Things that obviously have no place in government still take place, prayer during school assembly, or High School locker rooms. Government funded charities that are run as Christian foundations. But don't think this is all that different from other places in the world, remember that historically religions in every corner of the world have persecuted non-believers, not necessarily by their own hands, but the hands of their followers. America just tends to be more zealous than most first world countries. It's funny, I always thought of America as my home, but the more I see of its ugly side, the more I understand I have no place here, that the land I was taught to love is nothing more than an illusion. Anyways, I get worked up when I talk about this stuff, so I think it's better for me to let it go. I don't see talking about it changing much, in order for change to occur people need to want it, and I don't think many people do. Aaron

I love these Buddhist circle jerks... now if only Vaj would come back, it would be just like the good old days. Aaron

Discard beliefs. Don't enter into practice with a preconceived notion of what you're trying to achieve. Do you want to achieve true enlightenment or Buddhist enlightenment. If you practice Buddhism you'll be achieving Buddhist enlightenment, exactly what they've told you you will experience. Nothing wrong with that, but I do believe that, although Buddhists have scraped the surface of enlightenment, in the end it is just an illusion that they've created, to justify giving up the former "illusion". So once you realize this you need to throw it out the window and begin from where you began. Once you do that, then you can truly start to experience who you are. Also, although it seems hypocritical, and by definition is, there's nothing wrong with believing in discarding beliefs, because essentially it's just saying, I wont ascribe to any one thing, I'll examine who I am from the raw original nature from whence I came. It starts by examining you, I, or whatever you want to call it, without any preconceived notions of what you are. In other words don't go into meditation or contemplation believing it's an illusion because people told you that's what it was, in the same way, don't believe it's a deep inner attachment to the world around you, just examine it as you would a brand new object you've never seen before. Examine it and determine what it is, then once you've determined that, then you can come back and follow any belief system you want to. Aaron edit- I never addressed what you begin... well to be honest you have to decide that for yourself, but what I meant was the practice, you begin the practice of awareness without preconceived notions or beliefs.

Yes, well written. Now throw it all out the window and you can really begin. Aaron

I understand what you're saying. Someone earlier today told me my belief that there should be no religion essentially boiled down to a religion itself. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see how committing oneself to something so thoroughly that you lack the foresight or compassion to allow others to do as they choose is harmful, so in trying to live according to my new code, "do nothing that harms you or someone else" I am repeatedly running into situations where I need to evaluate what harm I might be causing, not only in actions, but in words as well. I think if I had been practicing this from birth, it would've been much easier than trying to learn it at the age of 42. Sort of like learning languages at an early age, once you get so old it becomes much more difficult. Aaron

I used to practice freeform writing, in other words you just write and let the words come out as spontaneously as you can. I wrote one verse that totally astounded me, because at the time it was the exact opposite of what I believed, it went something like this- In order to understand who you are, you must first understand why you believe you are. In believing you are there comes a great weight, one in which you believe you must survive and in believing you must survive the you you believe you are takes whatever means it believes necessary to survive. When the you you are is threatened, then it begins to seek control yet it can never understand that there is no such thing. It is best to let yourself go, to dissolve yourself of you than to control those who believe they are who they are, for any control you might have over them is merely an illusion. They may do what you want, but in the end it is only because they want to. So in knowing this, how can we worry what others think or do, rather it is more important to understand what you think or do, to understand who you is, what you is, and where you comes from. In understanding this, you must give up the you that you believe exists and become something that existed before you ever came along. --------------------------- Anyways, I think it has something to do with this conversation. I'll leave it at that. Aaron

You're going to make a lot of friends comparing religious people to pedophiles. Also you didn't real my entire post, I said that I don't think religious people are intentionally harmful, but that I do believe the institution itself is harmful. I've actually reversed my opinion on this from my stance awhile back, somewhat due to what another person posted on this topic last year regarding getting rid of old belief systems, not for the reason you say, but because it allows us a freedom to see who we truly are, or at least that's how I understood it. Wish I could find that thread, was really an interesting one. Aaron

I think it's important to point out that religion isn't intentionally harmful, nor are most religious people intentionally harmful. There is good that comes from religions, my issue with religions is that the institutions themselves are harmful, they lead people away from their true nature by instituting an artificial nature man is supposed to follow. This is the difference between someone who acts with High Virtue and low virtue. High Virtue is practiced out of an awareness of one's connection to all things, which comes from innate understanding of suffering. A person practicing High Virtue does not do so to be good, or do they practice it out of a moral requirement or because they are trying to please God, Allah, become like Buddha, etc., rather they practice high virtue because it is what they intuitively understand needs to be done. Religions, whether it is the ten commandments, the eightfold path, Quran, or any other moral dogma, invariably proscribes good and evil, right and wrong, and then dictate which actions are acceptable and not acceptable according to that dogma. Mankind does not need moral dogma, rather man is intuitively born with an understanding of what they should and shouldn't do. This High Virtue, however, is stripped from our psyche in childhood when we are indoctrinated into society and taught what is moral according to religious ideology and doctrine. Even the atheist's child is taught it by proxy, because most societies are deeply founded upon religious principles. In order for one to be able to tap into their original spiritual nature they must be able to rid themselves of these doctrines and examine the world as it is, rather than how they are taught to subjectively view the world. It's the difference between an objective reality and a subjective reality. The spiritual man sees the thief as a man who steals things, the holy man sees the thief as a bad and sinful man. The difference may not seem to be that great until you see how each treats that man, the former is likely to be cautious around the man, the latter to stone him to death, chop off his hand, or punish him in some way. Anyways, I'll leave it at that. I would be interested in hearing others input regarding this. Aaron

Hello Anamatva, First I never said people didn't do good things and I would like to think that the people that helped me in my time of need, did not do it out of a sense of moral decency, but rather a sense of compassion. I see the people on this forum as my friends, everyone, even those I might disagree with and I wish them all well. Perhaps some of this stems from the kindness they've shown me, but I would like to think that it goes deeper than that. I think this is certainly a place where spirituality does trump religion, where we see a decided need to practice, not so we can understand God or reach enlightenment, but so that we can learn who we really are, the depths of our souls. That's the beauty of Taobums, no place I've ever been in the "real" world has had the kind of people that I've met here, that's why I feel comfortable saying "the world is better off without religion" and not worrying that others will denounce me and cast me out for it. We are a community who's foundation is built on the principal of compassion. Many people here came to my aid, so many it's sometimes hard to keep track, so I don't try to, instead I don't view individuals as the people that helped me, but rather the Tao Bums helped me. It helps me now, not with money, but with a place where I can come to discuss topics like this and feel safe doing it. Aaron

Great point Scotty. I think you're right in this regard. It was the persecution of "radical"Christian sects in England, Germany, and elsewhere that essentially led them to believe in the necessity of a separation of Church and state, as well as the need to protect the rights of all people to practice religion as they see fit. In fact many of our forefathers descended from these Christian faiths. Aaron

I know, that's my response, don't practice organized religion around them, or at least wait until they're old enough to understand the fundamental concepts before you expose them to it. In other words give them the freedom to decide on their own, up until then don't enforce a moral code or religious ideology. Aaron