Aaron

Hello 3bob, Ask yourself, what is innocence? Not what is the definition, but what is innocence? It's a subjective description of a perceived state of being. It only exists within the mind, it's not real. Think of it like this, we cannot really hold evil, we can hold something we identify as evil, but not evil, because evil isn't a physical thing. We say you're evil, that's evil, but it's always an adjective, never a noun. In that sense, no we cannot return to innocence, because it really doesn't exist in a way that we can return to it, but we can escape the subjective mind set that causes us to believe in it in the first place. We can escape sin when we no longer believe in right or wrong, or good or bad, but identify those concepts also as social constructs with no real basis in physical reality. So in reality we can only reach a state of innocence when we no longer acknowledge the concept of sin. When we give up right and wrong and analyze what happens within the world from a perspective based on our experience, rather than intellect, then we can begin to behave as we were intended and as a side effect, return to a state of innocence, although in this state innocence means absolutely nothing. Aaron

If you're interested in trying this, I challenge you to go one day (on the forum to make it easier) without referring to something as right or wrong, good or bad, or labeling anything with a (moralistic) value judgement. I think it might be interesting to see just how often we do this and fall back on this as a way to defend our positions. Aaron edit- I'm actually going to try and see how long I can go without making a value judgement based on my own ideology or social mores.

General discussion is apparently where you go to start inane posts in order to try and assert your authority and dominance in a communal setting, because you feel slighted that your other posts were moved. Is that a moral value judgment? I sure hope not. Aaron

Informer I think you should ask yourself the real reason why you're doing this? I think you are also putting yourself in a do or die position, which may not be what you want. The only thing I see happening here is that your thread gets moved again, but this time you also get banned for doing something to provoke the mods. Also as a matter of course, I will not participate in a thread that's purpose is to cause discord and animosity for others. That's all I will say about this. Aaron

Hmm... if you ask me from my own personal experience, then yes it is possible to right a wrong, but in doing so, ask yourself why you wish to right that wrong? In most cases you do so out of guilt or because you fear the long term consequences of that action. Either of these is a fine reason to right a wrong. Now my own personal belief is that I need to make amends when I harm someone, intentionally or unintentionally. I seek out that person and do what I can to right it. I may go to them and tell them that I am sorry, but when I do, I don't ask for forgiveness, but rather leave it to the person I've wronged to forgive me. Also sometimes the best thing you can do when you've wronged someone is to let it go, because doing something may only make it worse. Also be sure that you've done something wrong, before you actually try to make amends for it. An example, your friend tells you that he cheated on his wife five years ago? His wife doesn't know this, nor has he any intention of telling her. The two of them have three children together, but have recently began having marriage troubles, which are mostly due to fact that the man's a general ass. You know if you tell her that this happened, that it will be the end of the marriage. Do you tell the woman and give her a reason to leave the marriage, or do you stay out of it and let the relationship play out on its own? If you do tell her, what are your true motivations for doing so? Is really completely altruistic or could you be doing so because you dislike your friend's actions? That's the problem with amends, is that they aren't always black and white and if you fail to look at the consequences of making the amends, you could be making amends that actually cause more harm to the people involved. And of course sometimes it's not your place to make amends, especially if you've done something by omission. The most important thing about making an amends is to not do the same thing again, or that amends is really meaningless. Also sometimes the best amends you can make is simply changing your behavior towards a person, making sure they know you aren't the same person that did those things years ago. This is often called a living amends and in my opinion is the best type of amends. Aaron

I think you may be misunderstanding what I meant. For me being like a child doesn't mean that we actually become children again, but return to the state of a child, a state where we cease to allow social constructs to define who we are and instead rely on our innate feelings about situations. We don't look at things as right and wrong, but rather as an action with consequences and make our decision about that action based on those consequences. I also believe this kind of perception releases us from much of the guilt and self-loathing that we accumulate in life, because it allows me to view myself, not as good Aaron or bad Aaron, but simply Aaron. If I can do that, then I can truly begin to live my life without the chains of academia, religion, or philosophy subjectively analyzing what has and will happen, but rather live in the moment (which is something children excel at doing.) Also, in becoming like a child, we do not forsake our responsibilities as adults (since we are not actually children), but rather allow ourselves to live free, curious, and compassionate lives where our attachment to others does not derive from what we've been taught about others, but rather our experience with others. In other words we remember our original state and return to it. At first this takes work, but over time it can become quite natural, and this natural state will allow us to reach heights of spirituality that we could never experience without it. To paraphrase, "am I the man who dreams he is a boy, or the boy who dreams he is a man?" Aaron

This is a tangent from my "Return to Innocence" thread. The key to understanding one's self is to look at who we are without labels or preconceived notions about who we are. We need to give up this idea that we are good or bad, or that parts of us are good or bad, and instead look at who we are from a completely unbiased perspective. When we can do that, then we have the potential for true awareness of our nature and the foundation of that nature. Aaron

Thanks for all the comments, some really interesting stuff there to think about. Something else that came to mind was the idea of innocence and what that means and how it relates to becoming like a child and what I was thinking about was the idea of right and wrong, good and evil, and all those other subjective beliefs we learn as we grow older. For a young child, good and evil, right and wrong, and moral relativism don't exist. Instead they tend to think along the lines of consequences and benefits. This is one of the reasons we punish children when they do something wrong, because they lack the ability to understand on intrinsic level that something is wrong. For instance stealing a cookie isn't bad because it's wrong, but because you get a spanking, put in the corner, or Jesus (or Buddha) doesn't love you anymore if you steal it. We use manipulation to teach children how to behave, so in essence what we should aspire to, is get rid of all the BS and begin to see the world as we did when we were children. Stop allowing people to define things as right and wrong and instead look at the action and judge it by your heart's compass or conscience, whichever idea makes you feel better. For myself, I tend to view the consequences of an action in regards to whether or not I will do it. Now the hard part comes from looking at the consequences and omitting all the academic and sociological programming that's associated with it. If we can reach this state though, a state where we no longer allow good and evil or the notion of right and wrong to influence our decisions, then we have also reached a state of innocence, because we are no longer bound by the abstract notion of sin. Just a thought. I'd love to hear other peoples opinions regarding it. Aaron

Hello Steve, From your explanation in the Zazen thread, it seems like you have an extensive understanding of different forms of Taoist meditation and I would very much like to learn more about them. I was wondering, if you had the time, if you could describe a bit more about the different techniques and what they are intended to be used for. My only experience has been with the empty mind type of meditation, but I would certainly like to learn a bit more about the other types of Taoist meditation. Thanks in advance, Aaron Note- The title is a play on the old Seth thread that was started awhile ago and wasn't meant to be offensive. I actually respect Steve a great deal and would like to learn a bit more from him. Also if anyone else has some insight, please feel free to add your comments as well.

Hello TC, John Denver is one of my favorite singers, period. I had a hard time listening to his music after he died. He really was a great songwriter and singer. Thanks for sharing. Aaron

Happy New Year Tao Bums!!!

Ahh... V, that's why I like you, even in the face of adversity you still stick by your guns. (That's a joke by the way). Anyways I think we both know that we'll never convince the other of what we believe or don't believe... well you know what I mean. I'm too ingrained in dualism for that, so lets end this conversation with a handshake and a Happy New Years. Aaron edit- Also, I've tried the naked thing when I take a shower and it doesn't seem to help. Am I doing something wrong?

Hello V Marco, You are an amazing man. You have no beliefs, yet you are able to get up every morning and do things, when obviously there should be no reason to do them, because there is no belief to initiate their need. That was sarcasm to illustrate a point. You claim to have no beliefs, but the fact is believing that one should not have beliefs is a belief. As a result I grasp your relative truth and see it as not being such. I guess that's all I have to say. Now if you ever exhibit a degree of detachment and compassion, that illustrates to me that you've achieved enlightenment, then I will have to change my mind regarding this, but right now all I see is absolutism being presented as detached observation. There are no absolutes, you should know that. The fact that it is incapable for one to exist within duality without beliefs is a realization that seems quite simple to understand. The fact that you miss my point tells me we're at an impasse. As for everyone else, go on believing whatever you want to, it really doesn't matter. If you are meant to become enlightened, you will, and if you aren't, then you wont. If you decide to be anything, strive to be like a child, then you'll see how pointless this all is anyways. Aaron

Hello V Marco, I don't think you're listening to what I am saying, because I am saying the same thing you are saying, only I'm pointing out something that I see in you, that others probably do as well, that you are advocating your own beliefs, but then denying that you are doing that very thing. So my question is, do you believe that a person should give up all their beliefs? Do you believe that a person that believes in God is not an honest person? Do you believe that an honest person can not achieve the experience of undivided light? I am agreeing with you, and apparently you missed it, except I say that the point is not to give up your beliefs, since you will always have beliefs, but rather that you must not, as you've pointed out, bring those beliefs into meditation. In meditation you must clear your mind of all beliefs in order to experience emptiness, undivided light, etc., because, if you don't do this, than as I've pointed out more times than I can count now, you're experiences during meditation will be colored by those experiences. If you go into meditation believing that you must follow certain practices in order to achieve a state of awareness of heart-mind, then by practicing those things, you are already predetermining what your experience will be. So to recap, yes, one must give up all beliefs when one is seeking a awareness, even the belief that one must give up beliefs. During meditation one should practice to attain stillness and emptiness, free from all preconceptions. Without this freedom, inevitably your experience will be predetermined for you by your belief system. I also think, that one should be aware that the chances one can live their life (outside of meditation) devoid of beliefs is impractical. So it's fine to be a Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or whatever else one should aspire to be and I have no right to say otherwise, nor would I. When I talk about these things, I do so as suggestions and also make reference to my own experience regarding these things. There will be some that understand and accept it, others that understand and do not accept it, and others still who do not understand and don't accept it, that's fine, I'm not competing, so I don't have to argue with them. The only reason I pursue this topic with you is because I think we're on the same page in regards to many of your ideas, but we've come to our understanding through different means. Also I rarely quote texts, simply because I haven't read that many, nor do I try to memorize them, rather I try to rely on my own experiences and understanding of the phenomena of duality, non-duality, and emptiness. I can also pick out, relatively quickly, those people who've come to their understanding intellectually and those who've come to it experientially. I hope that makes sense. Aaron

Yay! This must mean I'm an immortal! Where do I go to pick up my membership card? Aaron

But don't you see that these are your own beliefs, which you also could be said to avidly cling too. So here's my question to you, how is your own self defined short path Buddhism, based on your own intellectual diaspora of Western and Eastern philosophers any different than someone who just follows Christianity, Buddhism, or any other religion? While we're on the topic, how about the Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists that believe in Gods, where do they rank here? Do they receive as much disdain as the Christians, or are the Christians especially vile because of who they are? I wonder sometimes if you have somehow tricked yourself into believing you're objective, when in fact your ideas have simply replaced God in your mind? I think that until you get rid of this entire notion of short path, long path, Buddhism, Christianity, and all the other philosophical messages you've picked up in your lifetime and completely stilled your mind, that you'll never be able to see through the message you've learned from others. That's the other thing that amazes me, that so many people on here who have supposedly reached enlightenment, don't understand that the idea of getting rid of these philosophies, has nothing to do with not believing them anymore or abandoning these institutions, but rather entering a state within meditation where you have given them up by reaching a place of complete silence, with no distraction or thought, it is then, when you are free from these beliefs, that you can achieve an awareness of emptiness, the infinite source, and all of the other things everyone seems to know so much about, but can't seem to explain without quoting someone else. Also the word authentic is tricky and subjective, and somewhat puritanical, which is one reason I never use it. This isn't meant to be argumentative or a personal attack. I think of many of the people on this board, you're one of the closest to realization, but in the same way, I think you have some inherent ideas and beliefs that are holding you back as well. Of all the people I've talked to, other than Matt Black, Xabir is the only one I've met who's been able to put their experience into their own words without resorting to quotes. That's a clear sign of someone who has had an authentic experience. Anyways, happy new years! I hope this doesn't put a kabash on our dialogue, because I do enjoy discussing these things, my own little attachment. Aaron

This reminds me of the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which essentially aimed to do the same thing, allow government to control what people could post or access. That law was struck down and I think this one will be too. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Attorney General or some other federal department is the first to respond to it. It's just so unconstitutional and broad, that it just doesn't seem like it could possibly hold up in court. Plus when people start feeling the crunch you got to expect a backlash that will lead them to either revise it or get rid of it completely. It is, sadly, a sign of the times. Aaron

Great story. Thanks for sharing it. Aaron

Some more quotes from St John of the Cross- "The very pure spirit does not bother about the regard of others or human respect, but communes inwardly with God, alone and in solitude as to all forms, and with delightful tranquility, for the knowledge of God is received in divine silence." "Love consists not in feeling great things but in having great detachment and in suffering for the Beloved." "Souls will be unable to reach perfection who do not strive to be content with having nothing, in such fashion that their natural and spiritual desire is satisfied with emptiness; for this is necessary in order to reach the highest tranquility and peace of spirit. Hence the love of God in the pure and simple soul is almost continually in act." "If you desire to discover peace and consolation for your soul and to serve God truly, do not find your satisfaction in what you have left behind, because in that which now concerns you you may be as impeded as you were before, or even more. But leave as well all these other things and attend to one thing alone that brings all these with it (namely, holy solitude, together with prayer and spiritual and divine reading), and persevere there in forgetfulness of all things." "Strive to preserve your heart in peace; let no event of this world disturb it; reflect that all must come to an end." ----- It seems to me, that if you were to ask a Buddhist Monk whether or not the man who said these things was enlightened, most would agree that he was. Now, saying that, I will also admit that I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in God (or Gods) for that matter, but I can easily change God here for the concept of universal consciousness and say that he was onto something. My reason for quoting these texts was simply to add some comments that reflect exactly what you've been saying in most of your threads. I would've thought you could've used this as a way to prove your argument that all religions hold truths, and that clinging to any one would be a detriment to understanding the truth. Also I firmly believe that St John of Cross was enlightened, and that many people from religions other than Buddhism have achieved enlightenment. If anything I think this confirms my belief that enlightenment and understanding of non-duality is inherently influenced by one's practice. If you are a practicing Buddhist, then when you achieve enlightenment, your experience will be influenced by your experiences as a buddhist and color that experience. So perhaps, rather than urge people to give up their old beliefs in regards to achieving an awareness, it is better to urge them to attain a communion with the source of their spirituality? My final point is that when I hear St John talk about light, it reminds me a great deal of you talking about light. Just some thoughts. Aaron

"When a soul has advanced so far on the spiritual road as to be lost to all the natural methods of communing with God; when it seeks Him no longer by meditation, images, impressions, nor by any other created ways, or representations of sense, but only by rising above them all, in the joyful communion with Him by faith and love, then it may be said to have found God of a truth, because it has truly lost itself as to all that is not God, and also as to its own self." -St. John of the Cross

I can agree with your description of non-duality that you gave above, I just believe that non-dualism is reliant upon dualism to exist. There's no need for anyone to agree with me, because it really changes nothing. Aaron

I'm not sure if this is the advice you're looking for, since it's not chi-gung (qigong). but I've used this practice for a long, long time (over 15 years), and it's worked to help me manage pain and remove negative energy. It's basically a visualization exercise to get the energy moving. I sit in a cross legged position (you don't have to sit in a cross legged if you can't, just sit in a chair with your feet flat on the ground and try to maintain good posture), and clear my mind of distracting thoughts, once I've reached a state of decent clear mind,I focus on the pain and breathe in deeply, visualizing and feeling energy entering my body and moving to the point that's causing me to suffer. I then breathe out visualizing whatever's ailing me, leaving my body through my breath. It's good to have a focus point to look at, so that you can direct the bad energy out and into it. I will oftentimes visualize a ball of energy in front of me. I know it's not complex, nor ancient, but I can swear by it and tell you that it's worked for me and many others who've practiced it. It can take awhile for it too work, but I've heard many people come back to me and say it's worked almost immediately. If you feel up to it, I'd recommend trying it a few times. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't, but if it does, then all the better. Anyways, good luck with your issue. If you continue to have problems, I'd recommend seeing a medical doctor to get an opinion and perhaps some form of treatment. Aaron

Actually a great many people have achieved enlightenment without formal training. Also, I'm not saying it's wrong to have teachers, just that they aren't necessary. As far as the conundrum, perhaps it's not for you, but can you say that for everyone? Remember the experience that one has is dependent on their own experiences. The experience of no-mind, heart-mind, or anything else you want to call it, is highly debated even throughout Buddhism, which tells me that it's not a universally accepted experience, but one heavily reliant on one's dualistic experience (or life experience). The fact of the matter is that we cannot reside in no-mind and still reside within this dualistic existence without being the very thing we've chosen to see as transient and non-existent (which I don't agree with by the way.) I think the inherent problem that arises from assuming that non-dualism precludes the existence of dualism is that we cannot even fathom non-dualism without a dualistic existence, hence if there's nothing to observe non-dualism, then how can it exist? Non-dualism itself is dependent on dualism to exist, hence when all things return to it, then what you have will be the rebirth of another non-dualistic existence. So nirvana, if there is one, will probably be very short lived. Aaron