Aaron

Hello Serene, What I think and what I advocate are two different things. I would like to see every religion on the face of the earth wiped out of mankind's minds, but I also understand that we each have the right to freedom of expression, so it would be hypocritical if I advocated abolishing religions. No backtracking really. Of course I have been known to change my mind, realize I'm taking too hard of a stance, etc. It's just being honest and human. I didn't intend for this thread to go in this direction really, rather I was responding to other people's comments regarding religion that I thought were off the mark. I like Anamatva a great deal, he's a great guy and I don't think he's doing anything wrong, I'm just pointing out my own view compared to his. I like you too, you're normally a great gal, but I don't know right now . Just joking. We all have our differences, but the problem is that these differences are oftentimes more complex than what's on the surface. The religious institutions prevent us from being able to understand our original nature in a fundamental sense, that's my main argument. My second argument is that enlightenment gained through a religious practice is inherently linked to that practice and so it's not really fair to consider it to be the one and only form of enlightenment (which many religions do). As far as what people should do with their kids, well that's simple, love them, take care of them, and teach them not to harm themselves or others. Aaron

Hello Sereneblue, I think this may be an exaggeration. Also I tend to view communism as a religion as well, just replace god with the party. Aaron

Hello Anamatva, First I understand that as a devoted Buddhist you might find what I've said to be antithetical to your own belief system, in fact it only makes sense that you would feel threatened, especially if you've devoted any amount of time to your religious beliefs and practices. No one wants to be told that what they believe in is harmful and detrimental to society, in fact the proof can be staring them right in the eye, but rather than see a cobra, they'll choose to see a corn snake. To answer one comment you've made, I disagree with you wholeheartedly that most people require guidance to reach a state of spirituality. I think the issue is your definition of spirituality and mine. In my own definition I don't see it as Buddhist enlightenment or heart-mind, but rather an awareness of one's place in the universe, their relationship with the universe, and a knowledge of what is! It's about objective understanding, verses subjective understanding. They experience the reality, rather than have it dictated and defined for them. Take for example meditation, one can easily achieve nearly any state of consciousness under hypnosis, well guess what, the same brain waves that are dominant during hypnosis are also dominant during meditation, so it goes without saying that meditation is a highly suggestible state, and it's supposed to be, because meditation opens you up to the world around you, however if you are being told what to expect during meditation and actively attempting to pursue these expectations, then it is inevitable that you will reach that state at some point in time. Those unable to are most likely the same kind of people who aren't able to be hypnotized. Ironically these are also the same kind of people that oftentimes fail to achieve any real significant change through religious practice. Even putting that aside, one can look at other religious practices, such as prayers and rites, and understand that one of their uses is to repeatedly inundate a follower with a proscribed ideology. You pray everyday, recite a verse or mantra, and it reminds you of what you are supposed to be doing. Add to that a weekly sermon, a holy book, or even better yet, a strict religious upbringing, and you've got the makings for a completely indoctrinated follower. After enough of this, one begins to deny their own spirituality in lieu of the spirituality that is presented to them. So when someone says, "you can't become spiritual without religious training!" Well you're right, you can't become spiritual as defined by that religion, simply because the religion will inevitably win out, it's an organized structure that has been practiced for several thousand years in most cases, so they know what they're doing when it comes to ensuring people don't think for themselves. Most people, in fact, never have a chance to develop their own spiritual nature because they're taught at an early age to deny their connection to the world. They are taught that they are an individual and the reason they are taught that they are separate from the world and nature is because then they will have that inevitable void that needs to be filled, and religion does that nicely, by tricking people into believing it has the answer by introducing a false spirituality that preys on their emotions and vulnerabilities. We are, however, born with an innate moral compass and spiritual compass, regardless of what you might believe. Some people never return to that state (in fact most probably don't), but luckily some do, and when they do, they inevitably see the futility of the life we've chosen to lead. Some may even begin to write a book about it, such as the Tao Teh Ching, and then others will take that information and distort it into something completely different from what was intended. Now don't get me wrong, I dislike Taoism as much as any other religion, so far as the ideology and dogma go, but I'm not foolish enough to understand that some religious followers have touched this wonderful state of innate and natural spirituality and spoke of it, it's just regrettable that these people are also few and far between. I think that when one does achieve this state of awareness, belief isn't so important anymore, rather living in this moment in time right now is, sensing that there is something more beneath it all, that what we see isn't the entirety of existence. These people can wake up in the morning and live as if it's the first day of their life, rather than have to convince themselves to live it as if it was the last day. They live without regret or remorse or guilt, because they do no harm. They are the sages of old, the hermit who removed himself from society to live in the cave, the nun who silently devoted herself to the poor, doubting the good that she was doing, because she understood that it was all relative, that the most important thing was to help others and yourself. In a spiritual world no one is led to God, Buddha, enlightenment, but rather they have an innate connection to the spiritual. They understand it, not because they are told what to understand, but because they see it in every little thing around them. They can see past it and see the futility of self, and the beauty of the whole self, the birth of everything and the death of nothing. In knowing their place they do not grieve their loss, but understand that nothing is ever lost. The sad thing is that most people will NEVER reach this state, because merely thinking about it is heresy, blasphemy, or a "misguided notion". I should add that I'm not advocating abolishing religion, rather I'm advocating that people look past it, give it up and experience the joy of just being here and now without any preconceived notion of what here and now is. If you can do that, I think you'll see what I'm talking about. Aaron

In regards to OWS, I think I stand correct. What did they change? I think scorn was a bit harsh, I think I retracted that statement later and said they could be admired for their intentions, but intentions alone rarely bring about change. What we're seeing in today's society is the remnants of religious involvement in our government from its foundation. Keep in mind that up until the latter part of the 19th century the pledge of allegiance made no mention of God, but when it was included no one objected, not even the government, nor has it been removed or seen as a violation of church and state, and although a child is "free" to not participate in the pledge, you can expect him to be teased, ridiculed, and persecuted for not participating, oftentimes by the faculty of the school as well as the students. Religion and state are not separate in this country, that is evident to anyone who can read the news. We have an illusion of separation, but it's not really there. The religious majority found a way to institute it, simply by placing justices on the supreme court that were religious themselves. Religion undermines much of American culture and Christianity is the religion of choice for most fascist regimes, however I think Buddhism could be used just as easily, since both have strong moral dogma that are similar to each other. A government, to be effective and protect it's people's rights needs to be free of religious involvement. People who believe that change can occur simply by voicing their opinion, better be sure to understand that the right to assembly was one of the first rights taken away by congress. We have no freedom in this country because of religions involvement and enforcement of it's own moral agenda. One can see this in most free nations, including India. Religion invariably perverts the basic freedoms of man and instead enforces a moral agenda that helps to keep the population under control. Religion is perhaps the most dangerous form of institution on the face of the Earth, yet no one seems to realize it. Also one cannot be spiritual and religious, specifically because of what I originally posted and what Jetsun, V Marco and others have said, it doesn't allow one to follow their natural spiritually, but rather creates an intellectual form of spirituality that helps alleviate the guilt formed by it's own perversion of the spiritual process by enforcing moral dogma. I have to get to work, so that's all for now. Aaron

I wouldn't mind some actual documentation on this or something that could prove this to be true. I actually know of very few people that disliked religion historically, in fact they were a very small minority. Historically the majority followed religion and persecuted those that didn't. Look at the renaissance, Galileo, etc. This wasn't just the West either, it happened in the East as well. Traditionally speaking those that deviate from the norm are treated as deviants and often suffer persecution for being such. Most of this persecution was at the hands of the religions and justified by upstanding men who had great integrity. Aaron

Hello Cat, I can remember being propositioned by a girl one grade above me, when I was twelve (circa 1982), so that kind of stuff happened long before the internet. Now the exposure to sexual content is much higher today, but honestly how many guys here can't remember finding and looking at playboy, penthouse, and hustler when they were young? The medium's changed, but the motivation hasn't. Most adolescents will actively seek out this kind of material, so it's very important for the parent to talk to their children and ensure that they understand the difference between what's happening in a movie, book, or picture, and what happens in real life. When you have sex with someone else it is a biological function, but along with this function comes a rush of emotion, attraction, and adrenaline that can confuse them and cause them to make bad decisions. It's important for them to remember not to do something simply because everyone else is doing it or because other people are trying to push them into doing it. (Believe it or not, this simple message kept me from smoking pot until I was twenty-one, so it does work, or at least worked for me.) The fact of the matter is that teens will have sex, they've been having sex for as long as I can remember and probably for as long as anyone else here can remember, so we have to decide whether we'll deny this as being natural for them or whether we are going to do something to try and solve the issues revolving around it, such as teen pregnancy, sexual diseases, etc. Now as Jetsun said in a previous comment, much of this behavior comes from religion's influence on culture, it's a way to rebel against what's been seen as oppressive, and although I don't necessarily believe that most of the sex that's being offered through the media is being geared towards our young people, I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that they seek it out, just like I sought out porn when I was thirteen and fourteen, so will the thirteen and fourteen year old today. With it being readily accessible, the issue really is educating our children, paying attention to what they're doing on the internet and ensuring that they have the capacity for self determination not to allow peer pressure to cause them to do something they're not comfortable with. Again much of the reason why we have sexual deviancy is because we have created a myth around sex that most of us know isn't true. Having sex out of wedlock with a consenting adult doesn't actually harm anyone, that's the truth. We can continue to pursue "purity" and "chastity", this idea that we're monogamous creatures (when the facts are that science is finding this to be untrue) or accept our true nature and go from there. Most people feel threatened by this, because it attacks the institutions that their "perfect" societies stand on. I'm not saying this sarcastically, but rather pointing out that when one is confronted with something that denies their basic belief system, the first thing they do is react negatively to it. I'm sure if people took the time to look at these things objectively and set aside their moral ideology and instead came up with an actual plan to solve these issues, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems with our teenagers. That's it from me. Aaron

You haven't convinced me of the need of religion so far. All of this can be developed through close relationships with your family and friends and you don't need a religion to foster these relationships. Also the general rule of "don't do anything that would harm yourself or others" is a measuring stick, it's not meant to exclude close family ties with one's self or the community, but rather to be used as a way to evaluate whether what you are doing is right or wrong, sans the religious indoctrination. One does not need to pursue a religion in order to improve himself. The idea of uprightness and integrity are fine, but I think in the end they are merely hollow terms, they have no weight or merit outside the confines of moral indoctrination, in other words they are simply measuring sticks for how well one is following their religious and moral indoctrination. Aaron

Oh my... Oh my... Rainy Day. I'm almost speechless. I like you, but really, you honestly believe this? Have you ever stopped to think that the community may have been taught what is true, good, and beautiful and then told if they didn't believe this they were liars, bad, and ugly people? Answer me this, is it better to have a moral ideology or to simply live life not harming others or yourself? Which will prevent people from hurting other people without justification (or perhaps with justification)? And you know what, you are not BAD! You are simply you and you are beautiful and unique. You don't need to be like everyone else or act like everyone else, you just need to act like you. So long as you're not harming anyone else or yourself, then go have fun and enjoy the world. Aaron

If they misinterpreted it, no they weren't following it, but speaking from the point of view of someone who grew up Southern Baptist, I rarely ever heard about the Golden Rule growing up, even though I knew what it was. Religions may be founded on this concept, but most have decidedly strayed from the practical application. To be honest the only Christians I meet these days that seem to be living a "christian" life are the Mormons, and most people see them as wackos. Aaron

How has this changed at all in the last thirty years? Minus the cellphones, you're talking about the typical teen of the last four decades. Have you ever thought that teenagers are sexual beings? That their reaction is natural in a society that tells them that the feelings and emotions they have are dirty to begin with? You dissociate from things that cause you to feel pain, so it only makes sense that they would try to cheapen the act so that they could escape the guilt that is associated with it. Somewhere in the last century we seem to have changed our opinions of teens, rather than see them as actual "young adults" we see them as "almost adults" that still need supervision. In the nineteenth century many teens were married with children and full time jobs. What's happened is that we've chosen to view our young people as being incapable of understanding the nature of sex, and as a result we don't even bother to teach them that sex is natural and beautiful. If we spent half as much time teaching kids that they're alright the way they are, that as long as what they're doing doesn't harm themselves or others, it's okay, as we do trying to prevent them from misbehaving or acting immoral, I think you'd see a lot of these issues fade away. Of course I blame Jesus. Think about it, have you ever seen a picture of Jesus on the cross when he doesn't have washboard abs? And Mary, have you ever seen an overweight Mary? Now before you think I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not, I'm just saying the cause is deeper than just what's on the surface, and that until we address the way we've been taught to view sex within the social, religious, and cultural context, nothing will change. That means we need to stop teaching our kids it's sacred and "special" and meant to be saved for either God or that one and only, and rather talk about it frankly for what it is, a basic biological function. The fact is kids these days place a heavy emphasis on sex, one that shouldn't be there. If you think they don't feel shame and guilt because of it, then you'll never be able to see the entire picture. As I said before, kids don't experience sex naturally these days, because they have no idea what the actual nature of sex is, no one's really taught them. Aaron

I'm certain because even the "golden rule" isn't without flaw. We shouldn't do unto others as we would have them do unto us, but rather do nothing that harms us or others. That's the simplest rule of all. Religion can distort the golden rule, it can tell us that we should seek criticism of our flaws, when the things we see as flaws aren't really flaws at all. It can tell us that something we're doing is good, when in fact it causes harm. "If I were going to do something wrong, I'd want someone to stop me from doing it." But what if what you think is wrong isn't? So long as we allow a moral code to dictate right and wrong, then consequences don't matter, rather intention does. We shouldn't live in world based on value judgments regarding intentions. Aaron

Not just Taoism, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and the list goes on. Religions by nature separate people from their true spiritual nature. One cannot be spiritual and religious, the two can never exist hand in hand. Spirituality is free and cannot be defined by dogma or ideology, once someone decides to teach spirituality then they have immediately begun to teach the exact opposite. This is why I say enlightenment is a sham, because invariably, if you are led to enlightenment because of a path, then it is not real enlightenment, but rather one created by the actions one has followed. Buddhist enlightenment is simply Buddhist enlightenment, Taoist enlightenment is simply Taoist enlightenment, Christian enlightenment is... well you get the point. True awareness does not come from books or teachers but an innate understanding of one's place within the universe, the nature of the universe, and what simply is. You can't be taught this, it can only be experienced. If one is led to this experience, then one can never be entirely certain whether it is authentic or a prescribed and defined experience. If I tell you that you will reach enlightenment and that when you do, this and this will happen, nine times out of ten, what you expect to happen will and that in the end is the problem. Now to get back to sexuality. Sex is the most beautiful experience we can have and one of the most spiritual. It's perhaps the biggest threat to religion because one who can experience sex without guilt or regret will be able to see through the smoke and mirrors of religion. In fact the biggest detriment to monks is the fact they never experience life, so the enlightenment they experience is not defined by the natural order, but rather a pious dogma. Religions are the basest of organizations. They teach children to hate themselves, that they are not good enough and need to be better, that those feelings that are completely natural are evil and sinful. And we wonder why so many grow up sad and empty, looking for something else to fill the void that has been created. It'sad, yet most people will read this and tell me, not what's in their heart, but what they've been taught to believe. It's so ingrained within them that they can't even take a moment and reflect, because if they do they might figure out that everything that they've believed up until this point is really nothing but superstition and moral ideology. They might just realize that good and bad don't really exist and then where does that leave them? Are they good? If they're not good, are they bad? What if they're neither, where do they go from there? It's very hard to wake up from this dream and realize that they simply are who they are and nothing more, that there is no need to follow any designated path, that the path that their heart leads them on is enough. It's very hard to understand that their mothers lied to them and that their fathers lied to them, that everything about their life is merely a husk of what actually is. Yet when one can do that, then they can see all this guilt, sadness, and delusion melt away like ice on a summer day, leaving behind, not cold hardened water, but a cool pool of fresh potential. Aaron

Most religions are rife with the immoral, in fact immoral people are drawn to religions because it eases their sense of guilt and also provides them with a good cover to get away with doing evil. This isn't just the Christian and Muslim religions, but also Buddhism, just look at the rampant abuse of children in Tibetan Monasteries and Buddhist orphanages. What I see in religion is a darkness that suppresses mankind's natural kindness, twists it and tells it that kindness is something defined by dogma rather than the consequences of one's actions. You killed an infidel, there's nothing wrong with that. You slept with a woman out of wedlock, time to stone her to death. This is as true in the Eastern Religions as it the Western Religions. Show me one good religion that is acting absolutely without ulterior motives, and I'll show you a horse with wings that can fly you to heaven. Now think for a moment why you feel religions are good. Look at your relationship with religion, what you get out of it, and what you lose if you leave it. Ask yourself if what you lose is really a loss, or something you've been convinced you'll lose. Don't answer right away, your indoctrination is probably pretty strong in this regard, instead take a second and look at yourself within the scope of the universe, examine your actions, what you do daily, and then decide, is it better to have someone tell you what is right or wrong, or to examine your own actions and how they effect others. I for one do not see how murdering someone for any reason other than self defense can be justified. I for one do not see how sharing a sexual experience with someone else can be harmful, simply because my relationship with that person hasn't been approved and ordained by a religion. If you can tell me how it is, then I'm all ears. Religions are the foundation upon which guilt is born. The misery that most feel about themselves, the inadequacy and self doubt, more often than not, can be traced back to a religion, even if the person who is feeling those things wasn't necessarily brought up in one. Religions influence culture (look at America and India), and as a result propagate much of the self loathing, deviancy, and hatred in this world. Aaron

Because then we need to decide which moral code we all need to follow. Should we follow the Muslim moral code, the Judaic, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Hindu, the Wiccan, the Shamanists, the humanists... well the list goes on. The problem is that morality is subjective. All we really need to do is behave as we wish too, so long as our actions don't harm others or ourselves. Even that isn't necessary, but it's what I choose to do and I don't try to force that opinion on others. Religions are in the business of brainwashing, plain and simple. They tell you what's right and you either believe and are accepted into the family, or don't and you're excommunicated, killed, persecuted, or various other ills. This isn't just in the Eastern religions either, there are numerous historical accounts of Buddhists, Hindus, and various other religions doing the same as well. If someone tells you that you are doing something wrong and what you're doing causes no harm to you or someone else, then why is it wrong? Simply because some person who might've lived 2,000 years ago (Buddha, Christ, Lao Tzu, etc.) said it was? Now that seems to be the pinnacle of ignorance to me. Aaron

Hello folks, Something I've been thinking a lot about lately is the idea of applying the characteristics of the sage as it's described in the TAOIST texts, to my own life. I think that Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu went to great lengths to discuss these characteristics, but as an individual I tend to focus more on their thoughts about the mystery, chi, and Tao, rather than the practical advice they gave. My goal is to start a dialogue with others in an effort to understand how others view these characteristics and what they may be. In doing so I intend to put aside cultural and philosophical bias so that I can get down to the meat of the matter. Rather than start this topic with my own thoughts pertaining to these notions, I would rather hear what others have to say about it. Some areas I'd like to discuss in particular are: How does a sage manage to be first by being last? Why is the good man the teacher of bad men? How does one practice the three jewels and exactly how can we define them in the English language according to our own cultural subtext? I'm sure there are other things that might be beneficial to discuss, but I thought this might be a good start. I look forward to your ideas and thoughts, Aaron

I guess my question is to what degree? A major sign of whether a church or religious institution is a cult, is the amount of direct influence those institutions have on their members. I'm not even saying being in a cult is a bad thing. There are many happy people that are in cults today, the main issue, in fact, isn't that they're in a cult, so much as they're not doing what other people think they should be doing. So many times someone isn't even in a "cult" per se, but because they are not following the status quo, it's assumed that they are. Aaron

I wouldn't classify Tao Bums as either a religion or cult, but rather a society. There's a difference, since there is no direct influence of any one religion upon the masses here. We're free to choose our own beliefs, even if some people might try to push us in one direction or another. In regards to the topic, I'm finding more and more each day that the three main methods religions use to control people are sexuality, morality, and spirituality. If you can dictate a man or woman's beliefs about these three things, then you can invariably lead them down whatever road you choose. Just look at the young men that come here and post about their struggles with sex. If we live in such a progressive and spiritually free culture, then why do so many young men grow up feeling so guilty about a perfectly natural function? Aaron

I would say for most followers Buddhism is a religion and for the very small minority it's irreligious. I like the deep suppression comment, because I think it really hits home on the effects of enforced morality, the suppression of the natural self. Aaron

Well that's great that you're able to feel a spiritual connection to the world around you, most people these days aren't. I think you're validating a lot of my own arguments, in particular I agree with you view that religious people tend to use misfortune and loss as an excuse to recruit others to their belief system. I don't think it's intentionally evil or sinister, but they certainly see it as an opportunity, sort of like a lawyer who follows the ambulance. Aaron

Hello Folks, Thanks for all the responses. I'd like to address a few that I feel hit on the meat of the argument, the first is the idea of community. In my opinion the strength of religion lies in the community. When I first left church the one thing I missed most, wasn't the sermons or the prayer and closeness with God, but rather communion with the other members of that church. It was hard to leave something I felt so much a part of, but after time I did get over it and found myself stronger for it. That's not to say that I wouldn't love the idea of going back to a church (and I have on occasion), but it's never to pray or hear the sermon, rather it's for the closeness of community. See, religions feed on one of the deeper issues many people feel, loneliness. On one level it allows you to feel a closeness to others, but on another it allows you to feel closeness to God/Allah/Buddha or whomever. This isn't intentionally evil or sinister, it just is. The problem is that religions oftentimes use that closeness to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of its people, in other words "one nation under God" and also creating moral dogmas others are supposed to adhere to. My problem with most religions, whether it's Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, or Islam, is that each believes that one needs to follow a strict moral code in order to achieve purity/salvation/enlightenment and in posing this code, it actually prevents people from awakening their true spiritual self, because that self is not free to be what it is, but what it is defined to be. Anyways, I could go on, but I'll leave it there for now. Aaron

Real quick, is the true man something someone can become or something we are supposed to aspire to? For me this is much like the idea of "Christlike" in Christianity or "Buddha" in Buddhism. It just doesn't seem to be something someone can attain, or at best could only attain temporarily. I think the fact that "the True Man of old" is the way that it's described seems to infer that there were no more True Men alive at that time, Chuang Tzu included. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions. Aaron

Joeblast, Obamacare was a smoke screen, it really didn't implement or change anything, in fact you might call it a myth. In regards to demanding accountability from lawmakers, hell yeah, and the President and Supreme Court Justices as well, but of course we both know that isn't going to happen, ever. The system is "fixed" and that means it will never be fixed. Aaron

Hello Encephalon, Nice post. I appreciated much of what was said by the original author. A point that I particularly found interesting was his assertion that weare avoiding energy dependence because of the massive amounts of money made by military contractors because of our involvement in foreign affairs. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't have any interest or involvement in what the rest of the world does, but rather worry about our domestic policy. The cold war is long gone, and our naive belief that one power would take over and rule the world if we didn't stand to defend it, is (I pray) over as well. As far as the position of president, I think it's very different today than it was intended to be back in the 18th century. Aaron

Hello Tom, I'm sorry I took so long to get to this post, this is normally the type of question I answer quickly. One thing which I think is important to address, is why are you abstaining from sex? Also how long do you plan to abstain? That aside, nocturnal emissions are quite common when people give up masturbation or normal sexual relations. The body has a way of cleansing itself of fluids on its own, so if you decide to give it up one way, then it invariably finds a way to do it some other way. Now an interesting study that supports this idea is that in cultures where masturbation is discouraged and seldom practiced, we find a much higher rate of people having nocturnal emissions. Of course one can say, "Oh sex is bad and whenever you have an orgasm, you're losing a bit more jing", but of course my question is, then why does nearly everyone on the planet either masturbate frequently or experience nocturnal emissions? I think, especially when you're young, that it's healthy spiritually, physically, and emotionally to masturbate and have sex, as you grow older the desire to do these things recedes. I really despise those people who teach young men and women that they need to be ashamed of sex or that somehow sex is wrong or bad, those people are really just plain evil, no other way to say it. More often than not, the people giving these lectures, are the same ones that go out to visit the prostitutes (seriously) or something else considered deviant. If you don't believe me, just look at all the scandals involving holy men of most religions, not just Catholics, but Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindu's as well. Aaron