Aaron

Hello Otis, When I say I am certain that gravity exists, it's because I have been taught that it does exist, must I know everything about it to believe it exists, or does the fact I don't understand it completely mean I should be uncertain about it's actual existence? I am not stating that I understand all the mechanics of gravity, only that I'm reasonably certain it doesn't involve simply "down" unless you use "down" as a reference for the greatest center of gravity. I know your comment has nothing to do with gravity, but more with your experience with other people who are certain to a fault, and that's fine, but I would never tell people not to be certain about things or to be certain about things, but rather that there's nothing inherently wrong with being certain. In fact people should strive for a degree of certainty in their lives, because certainly brings about a faith and stability in their experience. At the same time they should be open to new ideas as well, so if someone comes along and begins to explain gravity in a different way they can say, "well now I know a little bit more about gravity!" The question of course is, can you be certain that people shouldn't be certain? And if so, does that make them wrong and you right? The point of this post has nothing to do with certainty or uncertainty, for me at least, and rather it has to do with a person's frame of mind, how they choose to approach learning and experiencing the world. I would make suggestions in this regard, but in the end it is completely up to them how they choose to behave and in the end they will have to deal with the consequences of their behavior. If that means they're subjecting themselves to a "belief loop", well if that belief loop reduces the suffering in their lives, I'm all for it. You're a good man and I wasn't attacking you, rather making a point about my own view. I hope that you can see that. Aaron

Hello Otis, I choose the middle road in regards to certainty. There's nothing wrong, per se, with being certain, if you're willing to give up that certainty in the face of adequate proof. For instance, I'm certain that gravity exists, but if someone comes along and gives me enough evidence to believe otherwise, then I'm willing to let that certainty go. I think that's what you're alluding to, just felt the need to clarify. Aaron

Hell Lienshan, The reason you can't see the above truth as a lie too, is because you perceive it to be the truth. The point I'm trying to make is that someone else may come along and see it as a lie and that if he does so, there's nothing wrong with that. When I say every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth, what I'm also saying is that we need to remember that our perspective may not always be right, even if we believe it to be. For instance, I don't believe that "to know when you've had enough is sufficient knowledge," I think there is more that's required, so for me, your statement may 'seem' to be a lie, but without examining it more deeply than just on the surface, without opening my mind to the potential for truth within that statement, then I can never really know. When I think of a lie and the truth, I tend to think of a line, on one end there is the truth, on the other end there is the lie. When we bring an idea to this line, we have to decide where to place this idea, but the fact is, despite what we might believe, there is no right or wrong place on that line, it all has to do with our own perspective. So you may decide to put it at the end that says, "truth", but I may not be so certain so I place it halfway in between because I'm not sure it's a lie or a truth. Neither answer is right or wrong, or good or bad, it is only our own opinion in regards to that idea. I hope that helps to explain my opinion in regards to that, but remember your own opinion is just as valid. Aaron

Hello Old Green, I agree that morality is a construct (which I think I stated), but I don't necessarily agree that any good guide endeavors to lead each individual to his own spiritual knowing. I think that many people don't understand that even classifying things as good and bad is assigning a moral value to that thing or action. So by saying that any "good" guide does such, you're really saying that any "morally upright" guide does such. There's nothing wrong with that, but at the same time it's important (IMO) to be aware when we do this, just so we understand our own role in how the world turns. Now I agree, that when you are teaching a child or even an adult moral values, that we should emphasize consequences (which have to do with that subtle tug of conscious), rather than a notion of good and evil. In other words teaching a person that there are consequences to their actions will help them to be more aware of their actions and act accordingly. An example is teaching a child not to lie. Do we tell a child to be honest at all times, what about if the soldiers come looking for him and ask, "are you a jew?" Should he tell them he's a jew or lie? If he lies and tells the soldier he's not has he done something immoral? I know it's a dramatic example, but there are other less innocuous examples that one could use that would lead us to the same question. Now keep in mind that the majority of people will never raise their children as such, but rather raise them to follow a specific moral code (or construct if you choose). So it's also important to make sure that when we do teach someone moral values based on consequences, rather than an intrinsic notion of good and evil, that we make sure they're aware that there are people who believe in good and evil, so that when they run into those people they can understand how they need to behave when they encounter such people (i.e. don't rock the boat, or you may get thrown overboard). Anyways, I could go on, but I can see where I'm stepping into a topic that's off topic for this thread, so I'll leave it at that. If we want to really discuss this, I'd suggest starting a new topic, but overall I do agree with your opinions in regard to morality. Aaron

It just says the requirements for an avatar and that's about it. It's weird, I can add it as my photograph, but not my avatar. I'll keep trying. I really don't understand why it's not accepting it for the avatar. Aaron

Hello folks, I wanted to start by sharing that this passage came up at a time when I was asking my self the question, "how can I prove that my experiences are real, when the only way (in my opinion) to prove that is if someone else has experienced it?" This passage, for me is the answer... I quote Flowing Hands translation of the chapter again, because I think he touches on the actual meaning of the chapter, and rather than translate it word for word, his intent is to share the meaning in a way that can be understood in English... "Those who are enlightened, sit in silence. Those who think they know something, are forever talking. In silence and peace one can become enlightened. No one can teach someone else how to become enlightened, for it stems from within the heart. Be at one with Heaven and Earth and then you can become enlightened. He who has become enlightened, is unconcerned with friends, enemies, honour or disgrace, with wealth and titles. For he has become at one with the Dao. This is the highest state of man." But I think that, if one looks at Wu, Feng, and Henrick's translation it's clear how Flowing Hands came to this conclusion. He who knows doesn't speak, rather he sets about making his world a peaceful place. He files down those edges that might harm others, frees himself from the entanglements of the world so that he can view it with clarity, softens the light, so what's really apparent can be seen, and in doing this places himself in union with the world. Apech hit upon the reason for this as well, much better than I did. The sage isn't quiet, necessarily because people wont believe or because they will, but rather because he understands the nature of man, the need to be right, and that even if you believe you are right, that doesn't mean someone else will. This is a recurring theme in the Tao Teh Ching and one of the lessons we can take from this chapter, that even if we "know" we are right, that doesn't mean we are required to share that we are. In most instances the greatest impact that we have on people, doesn't come from our words, but from our actions. If we take a look at the greatest figures of history, what do we remember most, not what they said, per se, but what they did. There are those people who talk endlessly and needlessly, and then there are those people who sit in silence, understanding that peace, in the end, is the most important thing we can share. The irony is that this is complete common sense and in fact we're taught this as children, remember when we were told, "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all?" Well that's what this is saying as well, in another way. If we know that what we have to say will only cause people to become confused or angry, then why are we saying it in the first place, if not simply to stroke our ego and prove how we are correct and they are wrong? Well that doesn't seem so nice to me. Anyways, peace and love and all that jive. Have a good one. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, I didn't say each and everyone of "us" is special, I said that believing that somehow we can transcend the human condition and become special is delusional. We are always human, whether we've reached enlightenment or not. I encourage anyone to prove otherwise, as in provide me with actual physical evidence. That's really my point, all this evidence resides within the mind, it's merely a construct that can't be proven or reasoned unless someone decides to. That's why actions are more important than words, when we witness someone's actions, we cannot deny them. The problem on this forum is that I see this endless arguing and it doesn't take me long to recognize the attachments and ego driven desires that fuel them. How other people ignore them and justify this is beyond me. I really don't want this to turn into one of those debates though. I just thought (yes thought) it needed to be said. Aaron

Obviously you're missing the point and I expected most people to, so I'll leave it at that. Aaron

This is what I'm beginning to understand. Anything I say about Buddha nature, heartmind, no self, etc. is pointless, because without having directly experienced it, I can't expect someone else to understand the nature of it. Those who know the truth don't speak, those who speak don't know. What I'm hearing is a lot of people speaking, but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate in any way that they actually know what they are speaking about. I see a lot of people regurgitating what they find in books, but I've yet to see anything relating to an actual authentic experience. My opinion is that these experiences can't be put in words, the words that are shared only seem to help stroke the ego self and allow the person sharing them to feel as if they have somehow been liberated and thus are beyond "mere mortals". The moment you feel you're special is the moment you know you haven't gotten it, in fact you are so far off base, you should start over from scratch. I don't expect many people to actually respond to this, since it throws a bit of water on the whole party, but I think it needed to be said. As for me, I'm done arguing about something that can't be argued about. If you want to know what it's about then practice it, but in all honesty, most of the things people are asking can't really be answered. I mean honestly, there's no way to really describe no-self. I keep trying to come up with the right answer and realize it's all a bunch of hot air. Aaron

Wow... it's funny that this chapter came along at this time. This is perhaps the chapter I quote more than any other, simply because I tend to throw it out there when someone starts talking about the "truth". The only thing is that I was doing the same thing and it took some time for me to realize it. What I did realize, and what I understand this chapter to mean now, is that the truth, the real truth can be talked about until you're blue in the face, but unless someone has actually experienced it, then it will be meaningless, because it is unfathomable to those who haven't experienced it. That's why it's so important to act, rather than teach, because it is through our actions that we can show the world the truth. People can call you a liar, but they can never deny your actions. I hope life is treating you well, Aaron

Hello InfinityTruth, I'm very sorry to hear that you're going through a rough time. I've been there and it's not a good place to be. If I've learned anything it's that these things come and go, but they do not and should not define your reason for living or dying, but rather they should be seen as simply one moment in time. A couple months back I thought I was going to be on the streets and I wondered why was this crap happening to me? Was there a reason to it all and you know what I found out, there was and wasn't. Some of it was my fault, like I should've looked for a job, but some of it wasn't. I was abused as a child and that had a profound effect on who I was. I thought for a long time that because I had suffered, that somehow I deserved to suffer or I caused my suffering, but now I know that neither is true. I know that life can be hard, but really no one deserves to suffer, but in the same way no one deserves the right to make us suffer. If someone is causing you pain, then I suggest you distance yourself from that person. You deserve love and kindness in your life, regardless of who you are or what you do. That is the truth. If you cannot see it now, then accept that I can see it. I really do wish I could take your pain away, but no one can do that, however you can move past it, let it go, and begin to live a life that you enjoy living, all it takes is making the choice and taking the steps to do it. If you are suffering then I really would like it if you talked to someone. Nearly every country, state, and region has a suicide prevention hotline. The only thing I ask is if it comes down to the point that you think you will do something, that you either reach out to me, I'll send you my phone number if you like, or you call a hotline. You are worth more than this and I hope that you can see that. My deepest love and sympathy. My thoughts are with you. Aaron

Hello Infinity, I'm very disheartened to see many people take such a subject so lightly, as if it was a subject like economics, that can be debated and discussed without real concern for it's implications. Suicide is not a joke, nor should it be treated as such. As someone who has gone through a great deal of pain in their life I can attest to that fact. I was suicidal on a few occasions in my life, but in each incident something stopped me. I am very grateful for that. My personal view is that the reason not to commit suicide, whatever it is, is a good reason. Suicide is not an answer, in fact it's the farthest thing from an answer. For me, as sentimental as it sounds, the real reason not to commit suicide is Love. Whether it's those that you love or simply understanding that you have a vast capacity for love. If you are suicidal, then I urge you to talk to someone you trust. Whatever you are feeling will pass, I can promise you that. Don't believe that what's happening now will be forever, because it wont. Ignore any advice that you have gotten to meditate or start some mystical practice, because if you are suicidal those things could make your feelings worse. Seek help. Understand what you love and forgive yourself for whatever makes you feel this need to cause yourself harm. If you do these things, then you will find that you can begin to live again. If you want to talk, feel free to PM me. I have a lot experience with suicide and I'd be willing to listen to whatever you have to say. If not one has said it today, I love you and hope things get better for you. Aaron

Hmm... well you've obviously experienced it in a different way then I did. When I experienced it, there was no thought, no content of mind/emotions, nothing but, as I said, stillness, which really isn't a good explanation of it. Perhaps you're reaching the early plateaus or experienced a different type of no-self? Thanks for the observation. Aaron edit- I would also recommend that you keep in mind that an intellectual understanding of these premises, does not constitute an experience. Merely understanding the concept is not enough, even though it can have a profound change on your life, in most cases that change is short lived, unless you strive to pursue it further and actually experience no-mind as it is.

Someone asked me this question in another thread and it caught me off guard. I understand why he asked me this question, that the question wasn't so much who am I in a metaphysical sense, but rather who do I think I am, but to be honest I started to think of it as "who am I really?" So my question to you is, "who are you?" I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Aaron

Hello Thuscomeone, What you're describing, in my opinion, is a distortion as well. I tried to explain it elsewhere, but it's hard to explain. When one has achieved "no-self", heartmind, buddha nature, whatever you want to call it, they've achieved nothing, for there is nothing to achieve, rather they have reached a place of stillness where nothing resides, it is not even empty, for there is nothing to be empty, rather it is just stillness, no thought, no desire, nothing but what is(n't). There is a great light that shines though, it seems to be constant, not flickering, it is more like a white piece of paper, only not white, so it is not a place of darkness, that would be misleading too. Though I think when people conjure up their thoughts of this state that does come to mind. Of course I might be experiencing something completely different from you, so forgive me if I'm mistaken. Aaron

I think the term "Killing the ego" is misleading, because even after you have "killed the ego" all you really recognize is that the ego is not there to begin with, that it is just something that you are conditioned to accept. Now the problem is that we are all creatures of the body, so as long as we reside in this body we will have an ego, thus saying you are killing the ego isn't true, rather you are killing the illusion of who you are. Aaron

Hello VMarco, I'm sorry if I was misleading you, but I've already recognized Heartmind and experienced it. I don't expect you to accept this, nor should anyone accept such a claim, I'm just merely stating that you shouldn't feel the need to guide me to something I already know the directions to. But maintaining heartmind is not something anyone, in my opinion and experience, can maintain permanently, but once achieved it has a profound effect on you and your actions. As for when, there is no when, there just is, so it's not like standing on a fulcrum, for there is no fulcrum, no middle-way, there is just the way. When I recommend not worrying about time, not contemplating it, it is because when you finally experience heartmind you understand time for what it is. You also understand you for what it is and that there is no purpose, that every purpose you have is merely a thought that has arisen from flesh. The body has one purpose, to survive. The self has one purpose, to experience life. That which you were before you were self has no purpose at all, it simply is. When you experience what is, then you understand the futility of existence, the illusion of all this, and virtue cannot help but arise. When I asked, "who are you?" Well that was simply a question that I felt deserved perspective. So your idea of who you are is just as valid as my idea, since neither idea, in the end, changes who you actually are. Aaron p.s. in regards to time, don't imagine it as being a line, but rather an ocean. Time is not linear, rather it is connected inexplicably to everything that exists. So when I say I am the alpha and omega, it is because I realize that I am from the beginning to the end. In the same way you understand that time only exists in this world, that the source is beyond time. If you're wondering what it feels like, the best thing I can come up with is that there is no desire there, no needs or wants, not even satisfaction, just an immense peacefulness, not even peace as you know it, but just a stillness, as if nothing is moving, nor needs to move.

In the recent discussion of De and the Tao, I think many of us have come to the conclusion that De is not morality or ethics, but rather something that come from Tao, and that's all and good, but even after figuring that out it still leaves me with a question, if Te is not morality or ethics, then how do we rectify the need for compassion towards others? Isn't compassion supposed to be fueled by a desire to ease others suffering, because it's the right thing to do? If so, does that mean we need to be compassionate because it's the ethical way to behave? Perhaps, but perhaps not. I remember when I was married and having problems with my job and family (I was feeling overwhelmed trying to please everyone). I was holding my stepson at the time, he was around a year and half old. He reached out and put his hand on my cheek and looked at me with this quite serious look, then sighed and leaned his head on my shoulder. He stayed there for the longest time, sucking away at his pacifier, content. Everything everyone had told me up until then, to try and ease my mind did very little, but in that moment, a moment where this small innocent child set about trying to comfort me, not because it was the right thing to do, but because for him it was the natural thing to do, did more to ease my troubles than anything else. In the grand scheme of things, there are far too many questions and often times, not enough answers. I get caught up sometimes in the big picture, forgetting that there are little things I can do, that can be done, not because they're the right thing to do, but because they're the natural thing to do. I believe that I am connected to everything in this universe, as James Broughton put it, This is It and I am It and You are It and so is That and He is It and She is It and It is It and That is That. If I am truly It, if my connection to you is more evident than what I see it as, if I can drop the idea that I am separate from you and you from me, then is there nothing left to do but feel compassion for those suffering? When one practices compassion they gain great insight into themselves. The Tao Teh Ching says that the Sage puts others before himself, and by putting others before himself, he put himself first. This seems to be a contradiction, but I don't believe it is. In my mind what I see is that when one puts others before themselves, shows compassion to another, what they get out of it, isn't just a deep insight into the nature of suffering, but also deep insight into their own nature. Compassion is one of the three jewels, because it is one of the fundamental emotions one feels for others, when they are acting in a natural way. The practice of compassion helps to strengthen our relationship with others, it helps to deepen our connection to the world at large. It's something that seems to be a sign of weakness, but in fact is a sign of strength. It is with compassion, true compassion, not done out of a sense of right and wrong, but done because one sees another suffering or has caused another to suffer, and feels an innate need to show compassion, that one is truly connected to the world on a spiritual level, a level that allows us to transcend the "I" and become the "It". Even animals show compassion. I remember watching a program about meerkats where for one reason or another a female meerkat decided to stand up to a hyena and ended up mortally wounded. As she lay dying, one by one every meerkat in the pack came over to her and spent time with her. Although we can never be sure what their intent was, I have no problems recognizing compassion and love in that act. If even animals show compassion for others when they suffer, how can we deny that need within ourselves? What happens to us that causes us to be able to tune out the plight of those that suffer all around us? Is the fact that there is so much suffering in the world justification for denying compassion to those who suffer? Anyways, these are just my thoughts. I'm very interested in how other people view compassion, especially as it relates to the Tao. In that light, I would ask others to be respectful and not address their comments towards others and what they need to do, but rather express their views on what compassion truly means and it's virtues as it relates to our own paths in this life. Aaron

Bumping in response to the topics going on around here.

Hello Vmarco, You're still missing the point. The discovery of who you are is not interdependent on the notion of when you are, but rather on the notion of what you are and even more importantly what you are not, because in fact our recognition of Heartmind and Buddha nature does not stem from learning, but undoing what we have learned. It is by systematically understanding the nature of thought and experience, where they are born from and whence they go, that we understand, first our connection to each other on a physical level, and second our connection to each other on an even deeper level, an understanding that stems from contemplation and communion with the source. When one is searching and in searching examines the tiniest details, oftentimes his focus on the small prevents him from understanding the larger landscape that is present before him. As I stated before, understanding time is not required for one to understand who they are. When they are is just as much a construct of the mind as anything else, so in fact if time plays any part in this discussion, it's simply that one must do away with the notion of time in order to understand who they are. Aaron

Hah! That is one of my favorite poems. Donne is among the best writers to have ever lived, in my opinion. One of my favorite quotes is from Meditation XVII as follows... "All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Really powerful stuff. Thanks for that poem. Aaron

Hmm... didn't have enough of the past-present-future discussion over in "Heartmind"? I disagree... I think you're placing too much emphasis on time in regards to one's ability to awaken their awareness of the heartmind. In regards to understanding who you are, I think many people understand this on an intellectual level, long before they "get it" on an experiential level. In regards to my experience and understanding of time, I know that time only exists within this realm, so I don't worry so much about whether the past alone exists, rather I worry about my actions in the here and now. In truth I think we agree on about 90% of the discussions out there, but the 10% we disagree on seems to be a doozy. Aaron p.s. I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.

The Dalai Lama is a politically correct Lama and thus not the best source for what you're talking about. Forgiveness actually means to not hold enmity for someone for something they did. I agree that if someone is threatening someone else, then you need to eliminate that threat, but you're talking about intellectual genocide essentially, eliminating any philosophy that opposes your own and that's just not something I feel comfortable with. There are many movements that started peacefully under that pretext, only to end in blood shed. I'm sure that you think that you're above that, so I wont warn you in that regard. Time is the ultimate teacher and in time you will see that nothing you're talking about will come to pass, at least not for many, many, many, generations. When it does happen, I feel great sorrow for the world, for when everyone in the world sees beautiful as beautiful, that is an ugly thing. The best moto for the world would be, "Be done with love." It is only when we are done with love that we can ultimately be done with hate. Semantics are a bitch. Aaron

Hello VMarco, I'm an American too, so I already know most of this. I think the issue for me is that you're vehement intolerance of Abrahamic religions is actually giving Buddhism a bad name. People will read what you're saying and assume that you speak for Buddhists, when I'm certain you don't. A Buddhist, in my opinion, that is following the eightfold path will not speak ill of a religion, at least not in an open forum. If they do speak ill of religion, it is often only in private conversation between someone who will not take it out of context. You are attacking Christianity and Islam, but I sense you're leaving Judaism out because if you attacked them people might think you were anti-Semitic. To me the question is, why? Do Buddhists aspire to bring about liberation for all sentient creatures, of course, but that can't be achieved through causing more suffering. If you believe it can, then you are allowing your own attachments and hatred, based on your own experiences, to cloud your judgment. I would look back on the statement you made that Abrahamic religions were the cause of cancer. My personal advice is to let your hatred for God go, as it will prove to be a significant hindrance to your own path. I would also remind you that not everything that has been taught is false. In the same way, the wise servant will not throw everything on the dinner table away simply because his master told him to clear the table, but rather he will examine each item on the table to see its worth and make a decision based on that. Now you will come back and make the claim that all religions and ideas are evil, not in those words, but we understand what you're insinuating. I will say that evil lives in the minds of men, that it is an illusion, so to be free of evil one must free themselves of the notion of good and evil, they must not distinguish between one and another, but rather allow compassion to arise and act of its own accord. When you do that, then you will find there is no need to speak ill of anyone, rather you will act to diminish suffering, not simply talk about it. Remember the three great hindrances to enlightenment are selfishness, anger, and greed. If you have hatred in your heart, or you are intolerant to anything, then you have anger in your heart as well, and so long as you allow that anger to grow and fester, you will not be free of that attachment. You can choose to behave as you wish, this is only my kind advice. Aaron