Aaron

That's still an assumption and I have read the ongoing criticisms and arguments you have both been having. I've known Jack for over a year and at times he can be overbearing (no offense Jack), but I'm sure he could say the same about me. My point is that the status-quo is often a label we use to discount what others say, without any real basis on fact. In most cases it's used when someone doesn't agree with our own arguments. I think it is infinitely more beneficial for any dialogue, if both sides allow each other to speak without attacking the others character, and instead address the others points with an objective state of mind. I thought you would and perhaps from your way of thinking you do, but I think I'm not the only one here that sees that many of your beliefs and ideas are founded on certain ingrained principles that you've been taught. This, in my opinion, is contradictory to what you are telling people. You say give up your beliefs and what you have been taught, but for what? To take on your beliefs because they're the right ones? How can you be so certain, or anyone for that matter, that your beliefs are correct? In the end I think what one should do, is not abandon their beliefs, but examine the root of the message that stems from that belief. I agree with you completely on this point and I've actually said this before, so no arguments here. See this is another assumption you've made. I've almost always understood the circumstances, I just choose not to react as others might have me react, but rather in the way I feel is correct. I am not Buddhist, Taoist, or any other -ism these days. Choosing notto follow any specific belief allows me to embrace those ideas that I feel are beneficial, but in saying this I also recognize the right others have to follow those beliefs they hold dear to them. I think ideally we should focus on ourselves first and then others. I understand that you feel that you have attained enough insight that it's your duty to teach others what you believe is right, but in my opinion no one has ever achieved enough insight into spiritual matters to say that they are right and others are wrong. I don't think Buddha ever directly attacked anyone's beliefs, from what I've read, but rather urged others to imitate those they believe are doing right and ignore those they believe aren't. If one can do this, then they can practice any belief without forcing those beliefs on others. If you believe what he says, sure, but I don't. I think that his ideas are ultimately idealistic and a bit scary. Who wants to rebuild a thousand new cities that all look alike? What he's done is rewrite communism in a more palatable way, but it's not a system that will work, nor one that will ever succeed. In regards to academia, religiosity, and socioeconomics, well perhaps you are right, because the basis for everything you've said, Jack's said, and everyone else on this board has said, is founded on what we've been taught and experienced, much of that through our education and spiritual upbringing. I'd think you could very well say that everything that's ever been written falls into this criteria as well. Anyways, you're free to believe what you want to and overall I don't see the Zeitgeist Movement as evil, but it's definitely, in my opinion, not the answer for me. I appreciate their advocacy in regards to making people aware of what they've been taught and their urging people to understand the boxes they've created and getting out of those boxes, but perhaps that's where they should've stopped, because when they tell people they're wrong, and that in order to be right they have to believe what the Zeitgeists believe, then that's not different than any number of religions I've heard of. Aaron

You don't need Adviata, Buddhism or the teachings of annata and dependent origination to come to an experiental understanding of the spontaneous nature of experience, you just need to be able to see that, just as your physical self is transient, so are your thoughts. The problem many people have is that they choose to view their thoughts as being separate from themselves, when in fact your thoughts are every bit as real as you are. So long as you continue to view thoughts in an abstract way and not recognize that they are not an extension of you, but actually you, then you will continue to be unable to understand the spontaneous nature of existence. In other words no one path has the ultimate truth, you can come to this realization by many different paths, and in fact I think Buddhism when its practiced at its most advanced levels can leave the practitioner with a conundrum, do we give up Buddhism because it is transient and if we do so, do we somehow lose the validity of our experience so far? I think the answers are yes and no. Buddhism is the tool that we use to shave away the block to nothingness, once it is no longer there, then we must give up the tool, or we will rebuild the block in its original form. Aaron

Lag again... caused a double post.

Me and Jack bump heads more often than not, but I think it's unfair to characterize him in this manner, especially since you have absolutely no way of knowing the motivations behind his actions. In fact I think I could say that you are exhibiting these exact same characteristics. You quote the same texts over and over like doctrines from a religion. I mean, if you're truly trying to think outside the box, to even get outside the box, then why are you clinging to Buddhism, Zeitgeistism, or any other -ism, just stop allowing others to tell you what the truth is. (And I'm sure you'll deny this and that's fine.) Peter Joseph is extremely intelligent, but he is also locked inside his own box, in fact what he says is so contradictory and hypocritical, it astounds me that people can listen to the whole film and not call bullshit. The problem with the world has nothing to do with socioeconomic structures, it has to do with the fact that humans are assholes. We want more than we need, consume more than we need, and take what we don't need. The only thing this has to do with socioeconomics is that every economy we've chosen to work within has proven incapable of doing away with this basic characteristic. So doing away with religion, academia, and any other facet of society will not solve this problem, the only thing that could change this is if we changed the way we feel towards each other, if we ceased using social crutches and religious ideals as a means to enforce our own twisted ideals on others. It would take a complete revision of the way humanity thought, acted, and believed, in order to sustain a society that didn't feel the need to take advantage of others for their own benefit. It's for this reason that there can never be an ideal society, because this very basic nature within man can not be resolved using any modern philosophical or religious model, the only way an ideal society can be sustained is if we begin to live for others and not just ourselves. That's the simple answer... everything else is just pompous, arrogant, introspective, conceited bullshit, nothing more and nothing less. Also, if you think non-duality is going to save duality, well you've got something coming towards you. non-duality can't exist without duality, or visa versa. Aaron

I don't see why you can't see both as true. I think the problem that arises with non-duality is when people believe they can define it for others, when in fact it's only something someone can experience. Again, it's like describing the color red to a blind person. Yes you can say it's not blue, yellow, or green, but you can't really explain what it looks like, only allude to what it isn't. Aaron

You know I never cared for Sackhoff's Star Buck, but other people seem to really love it, so I don't criticize too much. I really liked Tapping in Stargate, she seemed to bring a down to earth feel to the show, that girl next door meets alien invaders kind of feel. But yeah they could have coffee outside. I wouldn't turn down the opportunity to meet them. Aaron

Hello K, I stayed out of this thread for quite some time, because I didn't know what it was about. I like the topic! As an English Literature/Creative Writing grad, I really appreciate the sentiment behind this, simply because most people don't seem to take the time to understand the deeper meaning in what they're reading. I think understanding what's behind the words requires a bit of thought and insight, but also a good deal of intuition. Many times when I read a story, I could figure out there was something going on, without actually knowing. For instance, the first time this happened was while I was reading "The Handsomest Drowned Man in the World" by Marquez, I realized their was an allusion to Stephen, the man stoned in Acts, without really knowing it. I think now it was a subtle awareness of the attention paid to that specific scene, somehow I could feel that there was something going on there and started to research it to make sure, and sure enough the description used to describe the drowned man, was the same used to describe Stephen at the time he was stoned. I think being able to see behind the words requires one to also give up some of the pleasurable aspects of reading, because it requires you to pay attention to the subtleties of the text in a way that prevent you from allowing yourself to get immersed in the text itself. At least from a scholarly perspective. I have to turn it off these days, or I become the critic and can't really enjoy what I'm watching or reading. That's what this is about in the end, criticism. Criticism, which shouldn't be characterized as bad, but rather criticism in the sense that it allows us to piece together the truth behind what we're reading, the hidden truth. We do this all the time, in order to deduce the hidden meaning in everything that happens around us. Sometimes it's done through logical deduction, but more often than not the hidden message seems to arise from an intuitive understanding of what's going on. Anyways, I'm not sure if that makes sense, but thanks for the topic. It seems to have gone this way and that, but it's definitely worth the time to discuss. Aaron

Would it suffice to have Clint Eastwood and Dirk Benedict watch Stargate, Star Wars, and Star Trek in a movie theater? Perhaps while they drink a cup of Starbucks, while snacking on sno caps? Aaron edit- Had to capitalize the t in "Trek" before a rabid Treckie hunted me down and cut out my heart. Also am I the only one that feels there should be c in trek? As in treck.... oh well... huked on fonix werked fore me.

Compassion is an inherent capacity that exists within all things, regardless of their levels of awareness or understanding. Children exhibit the truest forms of compassion when they are still very young, compassion, not derived from morality or cultural norms, but rather the experience of emotion one has for another. Compassion is not emotionless, nor is it detached, rather true compassion is a deeper attachment to the dual existence that we experience in our day to day lives. Compassion that springs from emptiness... that's a misnomer, for there is no compassion within emptiness or non-duality, it is only realized within duality. To say that we should stop pussyfooting around regarding the egocentric-self-esteem view of compassion is true, in that compassion should not derive from the ego, or one's feelings about another, but rather it should derive from the heart-mind, or one's feelings for another. People misunderstand detachment to mean that one has no emotions towards others, but that's not what it is, it is an understanding on an innate level of the transient state of all things, that one can never achieve true happiness within the state of duality, because of this transient nature. Anyways, most people skip my posts anyways, so I doubt many will read this, but the notion of duality and non-duality most other people speak of is one that's been biased by Buddhist thought. The fact that the experience is so similar for most people that describe it in Buddhism tells me that many most likely have not experienced it, but rather just speak from what they've heard spoken, or create a dissociative experience that is born from their preconceptions. I remember that someone talked about the monk who, when asked what Bodhidharma was, dropped the bag he was carrying to the ground. When he saw that someone realized what he meant, he jumped for joy (an emotion by the way), but when they didn't he simply picked the bag up and kept walking. So do you know why dropping the bag to the ground is Bodhidharma? If you do, I'll be the first to jump for joy. Aaron

edit- The third click did this.

edit- You click and nothing happens... so you click again and this happens.

Well that's easy for Vajrayogini to say, she's a meditation diety and buddha. For us little people, we need right speech to keep us in check, because we lack the compassion and understanding she has. Too many people on this forum like to point fingers and say "right speech! right speech!" when really what they're saying is, "don't saying anything that offends my delicate sensibilities." Sometimes someone is going to say something you don't agree with, the measure of a man is whether they can accept that with compassion and tolerance. Remember it works both ways. Others don't just have to use right speech, you have to use right thought and right action in response to that right speech. Of course if someone says something that pisses you off or seems rude, it's always a good thing to ask why. In the end you may learn more from their rudeness, then you ever could their kindness. Aaron

I was going to tell you the joke about the man who fell in the mud, but you said no dirty jokes. Aaron

It's alright Lao Tzu, you can believe anything you want to. I don't care if you want to meditate, or believe it's not a good way to practice. Also, seeing how hard it is to learn English as a native Chinese speaker, I think you're doing a very good job communicating with us. So those people making fun of your grammar, just think of them as the jerks who like to make fun of people that are smaller than them. They deserve about as much respect. Aaron

No worries... it was pretty graphic for my tastes. I don't watch horror movies anymore, so seeing something like that made be a bit sick to my stomach. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it. Sorry for the irate post. Aaron

I thought a bit more about this and I was going to recommend that you meditate somewhere besides your home, perhaps at the park or a quiet place in the woods. Out of sight out of mind, so to speak. Aaron

WTF is wrong with you? Why would you post something like this, regardless of the topic? I could accept the first one, but did you ever think some kids might be on this forum. I don't want to see this shit, so I'm certain a parent wouldn't want their kids too either. Did you even think before you put this image up? Aaron

But that is only one sage. Who are the other sages and what do they have to say? One sage does not make sages, unless he has a few children that end up becoming sages. Aaron

Please name these sages and explain the judgements they passed to me. You are obviously far more knowledgeable about this topic than I am, so any information you might give me would help me to understand what you are saying more clearly. Right now I only hear you say, these men said you were wrong, but I do not know who these men were or what they said, only what you have said they said. A man who argues with another man's words will soon find that the boat is he is in goes wherever it wishes. Aaron

After much thought and contemplation, seriously considering all arguments made thus far, I think I can finally answer the question, "what is non-duality?" Non-duality is not duality. Aaron

If you practiced meditation, then why are you having such a hard time grasping its concepts? I think you were not practicing it the correct way. I am glad you have read so many books, obviously much more than I. I know little about Tao and meditation compared to you, but the knowledge I share with you is meant to benefit you, and encourage you to sincerely try it, before you pass your final judgement. Passing judgement on something, without knowing completely what it is, is like walking through the desert and throwing out the last of your water because there is a bug in it. Forget the bug, drink the water. Aaron

Taoism is merely a label that we place on our own beliefs in order to distinguish them from someone else's. How great is the difference between "eh" and "oh"? Must I believe what someone else believes? Because I cannot speak of Tao, I cannot speak of Taoism. I can only speak of those things I see happening around me and investigate that which happens within me. It is only by examining these things that I can talk about a Tao, but the Tao I speak about is not the Tao. It benefits a man a hundred times over if he can worry less about defining the -ism, and more about the Tao. Aaron

edit- double post again. Site is getting laggy every now and again. Aaron

Lao Tzu, One Hundred books by the sages? Be done with learning! If you've read one hundred books by the sages, you've read 100 too many. Stop studying and start practicing! Have you ever tried meditation? If you haven't, then my own recommendation is that before you criticize meditation, you try it first. One can be told how to meditate, but one can never learn what meditation is without practicing it. It is like reading a book about fishing. Yes, you might know the techniques for fishing, but only a fisherman can catch a fish. edit- Also keep in mind your ideas about meditation are not correct. Taoist empty mind meditation does not require you to focus on anything, but rather to stop focusing on anything and allow your mind to become clear as water. If a thought comes, then accept that thought, but let it pass. Keep letting them pass and with enough practice you mind will become still and then you can achieve and understand without doubt or hesitation the wu wei experience. Keep practicing and you will find that even within a crowded mall you can find the stillness beneath the surface, and from that stillness will arise actions absent of intention, actions that arise from the highest form of virtue. Anyways, good luck with whatever you choose. Aaron

The basic Taoist form of meditation (to my knowledge) is similar to Zen meditation, in that a person does not actually focus on anything, but instead they try to clear (or if it's easier to understand, clean) their mind of all thought. It's sort of like cleaning a mirror of the dirt, in order to get a better understanding of what you're looking at. So a person who meditates is not trying to achieve anything while they are meditating, rather they are allowing all thought to pass from their mind, so that they can become more aware of who they are. In essence this practice allows one to become more aware of the present and their place within the present. In doing so once can begin to cultivate Wu Wei simply by clearing their mind of random thoughts and being more aware of their surroundings. In this state one can begin to act more intuitively rather than rely on logical thought to interact with the conditions within their lives. At least that's my own experience. As a side note, my lack of meditation for the last few days has caused me to become much more irritable and discontent in my day to day life, so for me meditation seems to be an important part of maintaining balance and cultivating awareness. Aaron