Aaron

I said this elsewhere and it wasn't very well accepted, but I will say it here because I think it needs to be said. In any religion, when you have certain people who have authority over others, then there is always a chance for an abuse of power. Whether its a Catholic priest molesting children during confession or a Buddhist monk molesting children in a monastery. The problem is that man is fallible and subject to impulses and cravings. When you have institutions that require celibacy, more often than not you find two things, first that the people drawn to those institutions tend to be drawn because they feel it will remove some deviant craving of their own, and second that people will tend to give in to more base impulses because they have no outlet for these base desires. In other words a Priest or Monk who really is not a pedophile or rapist, will have something that occurs in their life that causes them to act out because they have reduced impulse control. Once they act out it becomes easier to do it a second time and third and so on, until it becomes an ingrained behavior for them. Now with that said, I think the VAST majority of people in these institutions are good decent people who have the best interests of their congregation in mind, it is only the very small minority that act out in a way that harms others. The problem is that when it happens, it is shocking, and such an abuse of power, that we focus on it to the extent that it becomes a greater issue than it actually is. For instance thousands of children were molested by Catholic Priests, but what we forget is that several million children actually were never molested. Yes it's important to address the charges and care for the victim, but one can't take an incident like that and suddenly label everyone involved in the institution as being corrupt. Religions are not necessarily corrupt, rather the people involved in religions can become corrupt. Of course I also don't advocate blind faith, but that's an entirely different topic for discussion. Aaron

Hello VMarco, I would recommend you stop while you're ahead. Just from the very short time you've been on this thread I've recognized a few things about you, first you are extremely intolerant of any belief system that you don't agree with, second you tend to be condescending and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you, as in you are right and obviously they are just idiots if they can't figure that out. This is the oxymoron that crops up on this forum, all the people that seem to present themselves as having this grand understanding of truth, tend to be the least capable of interacting with others in a civil way on this forum. For me I abhor intolerance, because there is no need for it. One can easily express their own opinions without denigrating someone else's beliefs. If they can't then they most likely don't have a firm grasp of their own beliefs to begin with. The other thing is when you quote the same text over and over to prove your point, then maybe you need to look for other text, because in most cases if you have to repeatedly post it, it's not proving anything, except that you haven't read enough to come up with more original posts. Finally, if you are telling me the "truth" then I know it's not the truth. Those who know don't say and those who do, don't know. Everything that the great teachers tell us is only what we can understand, there is so much more that can never be explained and even trying to is pointless, because it is dependent on one's own experience of these fundamental truths. So when you start to bad mouth Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and all those other religions, keep in mind that there is not much difference, once one peels back the layers, between these religions and Buddhism. The only thing that we can do as people is examine these and ask whether they are right for us. It's not our duty, nor our purpose, to tells others what they should and shouldn't do, but rather to live our lives as an example for others, and in so doing they will see that what we do is right and follow accordingly. Aaron

In regards to weird stuff. I think most people who've meditated for any length of time have OBEs. It just comes with the territory. Aaron

Hello VMarco, Although I understand what you're saying, I can also say that I don't think you've provided any evidence to contradict what Scotty has said. In my opinion you are using semantics to describe the very thing he's describing, but because you've come to believe it is something other than what he views it as, you are convinced that he is wrong and you are right. The only thing that we can completely understand is what we experience, anything else is simply conjecture. To say that the past does not exist, or that there is no future, only the present, is in no way proven, but merely a hypothesis. For all we know time exists always, the past and present and future and the only thing that changes is our position within the course of time. It seems to me that if time was fluctuating or only operating in the here and now, then any perception of what has happened in the past could not exist, because anything that happened would cease to exists, and thus never happen. So the mere fact that we can remember what has happened, seems to prove to me the notion that the past does exist. Of course when one experiences heartmind one realizes that time does not exist in all realms, that it is distinctly present in this dimension. Aaron

A state is a definition of a condition. Emptiness is a condition, simply by being a condition without condition. I'm simply using a term to try to explain something that cannot be described adequately without such a term. If you prefer to regard it as 'a concept regarding the nature of reality,' that is fine as well. aaron

Hello folks, I just want to reiterate that heartmind does not say that we are not real, or that the world is an illusion, the world is very much real and concrete, what it says is that our perception of the world isn't the entirety of existence. I used to explain this in terms of many religions belief in the soul. Almost all the ancient religions believed that man possessed a soul. Now when one first examines this notion, it seems very superstitious, an attempt to provide an answer to death, but in reality, and in my opinion, it was a quite ingenious idea that revolved around the revelation of the self and it's birth from the Body. I view this ancient idea in a more modern, and perhaps Abrahamic influenced view, that man consists of three parts, the body, mind, and soul. The body is the physical manifestation of man on the earth, from the body arises the mind, our ability to think and reason, before either of these there is the spirit or soul, that part of us that arises from the source and is created in this physical manifestation. Now Buddhists will tell you there is no soul, but I've always felt this was a bit odd, especially in regards to the Buddhist notion of rebirth, that one is reborn and carries their Karmic debt from one life to the next. I wont go into the particulars, but to me the notion that we are reborn insinuates that something exists within us that carries us from one life to another. In this sense, if one looks at the human as being the spirit, body, and mind, and that our existence continues from spirit to body to mind, then one can grasp more clearly this idea and the idea that we come from the source, become the body, then become the mind. Our spirit, in my own opinion is not a singular spirit but a cosmic spirit, that comes from a universal source and returns to that source to be born again. It is never separate from the source, only our perception of that separation makes this distinction, due to our connection to the body. So when one reaches an awareness of heartmind they have actually realized the notion of spirit as it was most likely viewed in early religions. Which to me seems to leads one to question whether or not Buddha's revelations were entirely original, or perhaps arose from an understanding of early beliefs that still existed in his time, but perhaps died out or were assimilated into other beliefs. All of this is conjecture, but I think worth examining in the context of heartmind and how we came to view it as it is viewed today. In my own experience of heartmind there are some differences from what Buddhists describe it as, but also a great many similarities, which leads me to appreciate and investigate the Buddhist philosophy. Again, I never take anything I've been told as fact, nor do I wish to operate on faith, so a clear and decisive examination of any belief is required before I will advocate that anyone study it further. Anyways, I don't want to go too far off topic so I'll leave it there. Aaron

As Steve said, Heartmind is a Buddhist concept. From my understanding the Taoist idea came along after Buddhism was introduced into China, so it actually has its origins in Hindu and Buddhist religion. Aaron

In emptiness there is no body because it is the state that exists beyond the corporeal world. What it's talking about is the state reached when one has become aware of their original nature, buddha nature, or heartmind. In other words the face before you were born. Trying to explain a lot of this isn't easy, simply because it is reliant on experience and if one has never had the experience, then it is reliant on faith regarding the explanation. One thing to keep in mind is that heartmind comes from the Pali word citta, (to the best of my knowledge), it is basically the idea that the heart and mind are one. When one can dismiss their notions of self, they can achieve an understanding of the true nature of their existence and understand the notion of heart and mind, the source and self, being one and the same. In understanding that they are one and the same one sees through the illusion of self and begins to see the underlying nature of existence. I don't even want to go into the body argument, but suffice it to say, you have a body, but it's only your perception of that body that makes it so. Aaron

Hello Scotty, I'm not sure if I've read the Heart Sutra. I think I might've read it when I was reading Zen for Americans. Most of what I'm describing comes from my own experience and my understanding of the fundamentals of original nature, which Buddhists call heartmind. I don't necessarily care for Buddhist lingo either, because I think much is lost when one uses terms rather than explaining the process. If you'd like I could recommend some books that might help you to understand this more clearly, one that comes to mind as being an excellent resource for understanding these terms is "The Buddhist Handbook" by John Snelling. In my own opinion you have every right to ask someone to explain something in plain language. Many Buddhists use Buddhist terms like name drops in order to prove their extensive knowledge of the topic, but lack a basic understanding of the tenants and practice. If someone can't explain something in their own words, then most likely they have only a superficial knowledge of the topic. Aaron

Scotty, Don't believe everything you read. If you just want to argue about this, then you can, but if you actually want to understand, I'd suggest you listen and think about it, rather than just dismiss it because of some distrust you have in the religion and semantics. As I mentioned before (I'm not sure if you're reading my posts or not) heartmind isn't an exclusive Buddhist concept. Anyways, good luck in figuring it out. It's by no means something you should accept, but I do suggest that there's no harm in coming to an understanding of heartmind before you actually question it. Aaron P.S. There's no evidence that Ultimate Truth exists, except for the experiences of others, hence there is no reason why you should accept it on blind faith, but if you want to understand the ideas surrounding it, then you need to examine the foundations of those beliefs and go from there.

Can anyone tell me where this idea that Wu-Wei means to do nothing came from? I'm not boasting, but I've read the Tao Teh Ching for around twenty years now and it wasn't until I got on the internet that I heard that phrase. I still ascribe to the idea that Wu-Wei is about going with the flow, to use a hippy phrase, or as I prefer to explain it, not interfering, letting things take their natural course. I think it can confuse some people on these boards (including me) to describe Wu-Wei as doing nothing, because then we get this idea that the sage pretty much sat down in a chair all day and just watched the world happen around them, when, at least in my opinion, that's not what they did at all. At least lets hope for the sake of the baby in the river that isn't true. Any detailed explanation about why people believe it means to do nothing, would be greatly appreciated. Aaron

Hello Chi and Marblehead, I have to laugh because I read your posts and I what I read was exactly what I posted, but somehow it was missed, or maybe not expressed clearly. Wu-wei is not no-action, but rather not interfering. That doesn't mean that one doesn't save the baby drowning in the river, but it may mean that you don't step in the middle of fight between two bears. As Steve mentioned, the concept of Wu-Wei is beyond most peoples ability to attain, simply because it requires that one be aware of their true self, or heartmind as it's being described elsewhere. I'm not so certain about the one or two in a generation, remember there are many more people on the Earth now than there were, so maybe several hundred in a generation. With all of this said, like much of what Lao Tzu wrote, it is always expressed metaphorically, in a way that prompts the reader to endeavor to experience it themselves, so perhaps, rather than argue about the definition of Wu-Wei, we should aspire to allow it to arise within us. Aaron

Hello Vaj and Scotty, I don't think using ultimate is necessarily a good example of Heartmind, since it is not ultimate in any sense, but rather simply the beginning state, the original nature, or if you prefer Buddha nature. To say that the body doesn't exist isn't true at all, but rather (imo) when one achieves heartmind, they understand the nature of the body and all that flows from it, which I've already explained, as have others just as well, so I don't think that requires any more explanation. Scotty, the idea (imo) isn't that the body doesn't exist, nor that we don't have thoughts, but the idea is to understand where these things come from, as VMarco mentioned somewhere, understanding who we were before we were born. In understanding our face before we were born we realize we have no face, that everything that has arisen and become self, has come from our face, the physical manifestation of our consciousness on the Earth. When we become aware of heartmind then we can begin to see through all of this and become aware of where it arises from, but even more so, we can begin to allow our Buddha nature to arise and from that nature Compassion and virtue can arise of its own accord. I would recommend that it's not so important to understand what heartmind is, so much as it is to experience it yourself and that ultimately can't be done without insight into the nature of self. So look within and it will become apparent without. Aaron

Hello Cowtao, Thank you for the kind words. Yes, within, so without. I appreciate your insights. I was thinking about your experience within an experience and at first that seemed like an odd description, but after some reflection, I think you hit it on the head. It's funny trying to find the words for something that really can't be explained through words or images... it's like trying to gather water with a spaghetti strainer. As far as The Matrix goes, I've never thought of it in regards to Buddhism. I might have to watch the first one again and see what comes up. Aaron

Very interesting. I enjoy reading your views on Buddhism, you obviously have a great deal of knowledge on the subject and I hope I can learn a bit more about Buddhism in our discussions. As an aside I tend to prefer to discuss things by providing evidence that doesn't require the denigration of other religions. If my evidence is sound and it makes sense, then there will be no need to say, "these guys are sooo bad" or "these guys really got it right" and rather I can just say, "this is how I see it." Aaron

Nicely said. I don't necessarily ascribe to the notion of ego, but rather the self, i.e. those things that arise from the body. I described this a bit more in the Heartmind thread as well. Aaron

I think the point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter. If you are more worried about belts than practice, then maybe you should rethink your priorities. I don't know of any teacher that tells a four year old to stand and fight an adult. Belts are more for kids than they are adults. If you're an adult and you're only practicing martial arts to achieve a black belt, then you're missing the point entirely. Aaron

Hello VMarco, I wanted to address some of the statements you made that I believe are untrue. First you state that they found no evidence of cancer in the Ancient mummies of Egypt, and although this may be true, I haven't checked, I do know that the ancient Egyptians mentioned cancer and described different types of tumors as far back as 1500 BC, so there was obviously cancer in that time, just perhaps not as prevalent as today. The Greeks also mentioned Cancer and that's actually where the name for the disease comes from. They associated it with a crab, I'm not sure why, but it was also present in the Ancient Greek society, and seen as an illness. Associating Cancer with Abrahamic religions is, in my opinion, somewhat disparaging and grossly inaccurate. To my knowledge there has never been any correlation that cancer is dependent on someone's belief system, but rather it is dependent on numerous factors, including environmental conditions, genetics, and stress. Now there may be certain types of cancer are more prevalent in the Jewish and Middle Eastern communities, but that doesn't mean that it is caused by their belief system. Third, I think you have a good working idea of heartmind, but perhaps you're leaving out some core elements of it. The heartmind is actually the state of buddha nature. Since we all have a buddha nature, we all have a heartmind, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Taoist, and Hindu. Heartmind is the natural state of being that exists within us. Achieving an awareness of heartmind requires that one understand that one's concept of self derives from their body. In other words the body gives birth to experience, experience gives birth to awareness, awareness gives birth to feeling, and feeling gives birth to thought. In order for one to return to heartmind, our original nature, they must first become aware of their thoughts, and then that their thoughts are derives from their feelings, or emotional attachments, and that those emotional attachments are derived from the perception of the world, and that perception is derived from their experiences with the world, which is ultimately originated from their body. Once one can see this then they can look beyond body and begin to understand the formless nature of heartmind, which is not the absence of feelings or experience, but rather a state that allows one to see through the true nature of all the aforementioned. We begin to see that we have begun from emptiness and can appeal to emptiness. In that emptiness the higher virtues can arise, compassion being the primary and most talked about (and in the restraining concepts of intellectualism, perhaps the most important.) I would also pose the idea that this concept is not exclusive to Buddhist thought but is also found in Christian Mysticism, Sufism, and Taoism. What Buddhism did, was make it a mainstream concept, rather than a concept understood by only a few. Anyways, I would be reticent to make comments regarding the ill effects of a specific religion without first examining the ill effects that can be caused by one's own beliefs or religion. In the end if one clings to Buddhism, for instance, one can never actually achieve heartmind, because heartmind does not exist within Buddhism. Aaron

Does this remind you of a conversation we had? Anyways I asked you this question in a roundabout way and you told me the same thing and I didn't get it. I think that book you lent me at the time "The Empty Mirror: Experiences in a Japanese Zen Monastery" by Van de Wetering was what really opened my mind to this notion because it had very poignant scenes where Masters who had reached the highest level of their training still were very much human. Arguing over money to go to the movies, enjoying baseball, and so many other mundane things that helps you to understand that enlightenment doesn't mean that you will suddenly be free of vice or become instantaneously virtuous, but rather it just means you've achieved a degree of understanding. In the end you will always be very much human. Humans make mistakes. I make mistakes. We either learn to accept that or we can become cynical and bitter which in the end will only lead us to more suffering. Aaron

My nephew was nine when he got his black belt and I remember how happy and proud he was to receive it. It was by no means an easy task for him and it required much practice and hard work on his part. He's now seventeen and no longer practices martial arts, but he still has the picture of him when he received his black belt. I think many instructors understand that children desire some kind of acknowledgement for their hard work and because of this they reward that hard work with belts. Most martial artists understand that belts, in the grand scheme of things, means very little, but to a child learning and working it means very much. Why take that away or punish the child because we want to make it more or less important than it really is. Chill out, relax, and let the kids have their fun. Aaron edit- I smiled the other day because my nephew came to work with me for the first time. We were installing office furniture in a school and we had to break down some boxes. I watched as he, with great ceremony, proceeded to break the box with a closed fist, only to have his fist pass through the box and get stuck. For a moment I saw him as that small child breaking boards, then looking off to where we sat watching him, seeing if anyone saw what a good job he'd done. That's what the black belt is really about (for kids).

Hello Folks, I merged the topic Chapter One of the Guodian Tao Te Ching with the TTC Study chapter one per subforum rules. Even though the Guodian Tao Te Ching is from an earlier era than other versions, it is still considered a chapter of the Tao Teh Ching and because of this it doesn't warrant its own chapter. Aaron

My simplest definition of Wu Wei (and I believe the Guodian definition to be) is not interfering, allowing things to take their natural course. So the sage accomplishes much by doing nothing, because he has not interfered and hence nature has done it of it's own accord. In that light, doing nothing isn't necessarily Wu Wei, if doing nothing prevents the natural course from occurring. There was a debate once in another forum where someone asked if allowing a baby to drown in a river was Wu Wei. Some believed the Sage would allow the baby to drown, others believed he wouldn't. The fact of the matter is it's not as simple as that. The Sage understands his environment and his own place within that environment, hence he is not separate from the world, but a part of it. As a result he has a role to play within that environment, but in his ability to understand his place, he can interact with that environment in a way that does not interfere with it. The Sage waits for the fruit to ripen, the water to become still, and his home to present itself. In such a way he does not take anything that is not given or disturb anything that does not need to be disturbed. Aaron

I don't know if this makes sense. It seems to contradict itself, because believing that perception and reality are illusions is every bit as much a construct of belief in itself. So in order to truly follow this line of thinking one must not believe in anything, not Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or even rational thought, but rather that nothing is real. But even believing that means I've fallen into the trap of belief and hence ignorance, so perhaps the only liberation from ignorance is the cessation of thought and existence? Aaron