Aaron

I agree, there are certain people whose lives are crappy through no fault of their own. I'm not trying to say people are living in poverty because they're lazy, because that's not true, what I'm saying is that, more often than not, if everyone thinks you're a jerk, it's because you act like a jerk. It's not until we take responsibility for our actions that we can ultimately change them. Aaron

I actually wrote a pretty lengthy piece last night about Love or at least how I came to understand it and part of it had to do with the realization that we are responsible for our own pasts and future. In other words, crap happens, but we are ultimately responsible for how our lives are. If your life is crappy, then it's most likely not Karma that's made it crappy, but rather how you've chosen to interact with the world. You crap on a lot of people, expect people to crap on you. That's the simple truth of it all. Aaron

This thread made me think of my own life experience. The mention of Karma in particular. I think it's absurd to believe that a child (or adult) deserves what happens to them because of something they've done in a previous life. Karma is the scapegoat of Eastern Religion. Just like Western Religion uses sin to keep people in line. My own opinion is that karma and sin are useful tools to moderate people's behavior and to justify the bad things that happen in our lives. You deserve to be hurt because you did something bad in a previous life or you have a sinful nature. I've never understood people's inability to understand that there really is no good or bad or right or wrong, that in the end it comes down to action and inaction and our own perception of such. I think when we begin to understand this, then we will have no problem taking responsibility for our own actions. Aaron

Hello Jetsun, I believe in reincarnation, but not Karma. In fact I don't believe that we carry over any experience from our previous life to our next. I do, however, believe that once we achieve a degree of awareness, that we pass on from this existence (Earthly plain so to speak) to the next. Now I can tell you this and you will most likely not believe me, and that's fine. As Cow Tao has said, and I agree, there is no need to believe in Karma or Dharma (or reincarnation) for that matter, what is important is the work that you do in the here and now. Aaron

Since Seth shared his experiences with the Ruthless Truth forum and his insight, I wanted to bump this thread. In particular I wanted to share that I still find the site to be extremely troubling. I can't shake the feeling that Ruthless Truth is a cult in the making, if not already. It worries me a great deal, especially after perusing the threads (again and a lot more in depth) and seeing how they operate. I was wondering if anyone else has gone over there and gotten the same impression? Aaron

Hello Vaj, I would love to see you, for just one day (maybe two), not disagree with anyone and instead just make comments about those things you can agree on, without resorting to veiled comments, but just absolutely positive affirmations to others beliefs. Aaron

Hello Ben, I'm sorry to hear about your grandmother's passing. As far as helping her in her journey, well in all honesty there's nothing you can do for her now, so worry about yourself (which maybe is what your grandmother would've wanted you to do in the first place.) Don't be afraid to grieve, nor express your grief. Again, I'm really sorry to hear about your grandmother. I will still think about you, but my thoughts wont help you at all, so no need to thank me, just do what you need to and let things happen as they will. Aaron

Hello Seth, Congratulations on your realization or maybe it would be better to say, the realization that there is no realization to begin with... hehehe... just playing with words. Just to let you know I jumped on this thread a bit late, so I haven't read every post, but I read a page or two. First it's good to hear that you're human. We all have our tribulations and the people I listen to and respect the most are those who will share those experiences humbly and honestly. Perfect people don't exist, so when I meet them I tend not to hear what they say, but I hear you perfectly. Second, I experienced much of what you're talking about years and years ago, actually around fifteen years ago. I wasn't aware of all the no-self, self, etc, so it took a long time to rationalize all of this, but suffice it to say my original understanding wasn't that there was no-self, but rather there was a universal state of connection that everything started from. Over the last fifteen years I've grown to understand the idea of no-self more closely, to the point that I realize there is no real me, but at the same time I also realize that there is a real me. The problem with many of these realizations is that they strain our ability to understand them, so I wasn't surprised when you mentioned panic attacks. There's a reason why most real "masters" are not willing to accept mentally ill people as their students, which is simply that many of these realizations are mind blowing for an emotionally healthy person, for someone experiencing mental illness, they can be devastating. I'm glad to hear that you were able to come to your own understanding in a way that helped you to overcome your own emotional and spiritual issues. (Just keep in mind that if these problems return, that doesn't mean what you experienced wasn't valid, only that you're experiencing something you've experienced before.) In regards to Ruthless Truth, I would still recommend that you maintain a healthy understanding of what the purpose of that group really is and not just the perceived purpose. Having come upon a smidgen of truth, I think you can examine it well enough to come to that realization without my needing to spell it out. Anyways, from the unenlightened masses, I want to thank you for sharing and best wishes. Everything works out the way it's intended to. Aaron edit- I feel compelled to add that I am very sorry that you had to suffer to come to your understanding, but I feel that without the suffering you're understanding would've been limited at best, so if you come away from this with anything, let it be an appreciation for the wellspring of understanding that suffering can be.

I understand what you're saying, I just tend to side with the majority of authorities who have translated this chapter and view it as not being something you can literally translate. Aaron

Hello guys, I used to translate the Tao Teh Ching, but I gave it up. This however is probably one of the most important chapters (imo) found in the Tao Teh Ching, so I thought I might give a loose translation, based on what I think is trying to be expressed. Take it or leave it. The Sage is not interested in his own well being, But takes the well being of others as his own. He is kind to those who are kind, He is kind to those who are not kind, for Virtue (Te) is kind. He trusts those who are trustworthy, He trusts those who are not trustworthy, for Virtue (Te) is trustworthy. To the world he is shy and humble. For the sake of the world he remains undecided. All the people listen and watch him, because he comes to them like a small child. Anyways... when I have the time I'll look at the original texts and try to come up with a better translation... What I think it's actually saying, isn't that the sage has "no-mind", I think that's our own inclination to add Buddhist mysticism to the mix, but rather that he is moved by compassion. This compassion allows him to be kind to those who are unkind, and trust those who are not trustworthy, because he practices High Compassion, or Te, and, as it's been said in other threads, High Compassion is not just about being nice because it's the right thing to do, but being nice because one sees the inherent wisdom in the act, in other words he is moved to compassion because of his felt connection to the world. I think the Sage is undecided, in that he is always empty, he allows each action that occurs to influence his own actions, rather than going with preconceived ideas of what will happen. The people listen to him because he is trustworthy, because he is kind, because he has the mind and heart of a child, so when he speaks they hear that unwavering belief in the virtues of kindness, humility, and compassion, if not said, then in his actions. Anyways, work tomorrow, so bed now. Take care. Aaron

I think that people are generally encouraged to use ensure instead of insure, but I think most educated people know what insure means and wouldn't balk at your use of the word. Aaron

My degree is in English and my general rule of thumb is that you don't correct other people's grammar, punctuation, and spelling unless you want them to start going over yours with a fine-toothed comb. Hence, the sage does not correct a man's grammar, rather he reads what a man writes and answers accordingly. Of course if you have to point out another's mistakes, then you should be above making those same mistakes. Aaron

Really...A 162 IQ and all your vast knowledge of Buddhism, in particular Tibetan Buddhism, and you cut and paste from Wikipedia? Well at least you cited your source, rather than claiming it as your own. Really though, couldn't you have found a better source? Aaron

Hello guys, I think you're right Marblehead and Devoid, but I see it a bit differently. I think that being able to see this comes from being in harmony with the Tao (as mentioned before, we are always with Tao, just not in harmony). When one is in harmony then Te arises, which is right action, or what the Taoists might have called right action, really it's just the most beneficial action. So a Sage sees a criminal and trusts him because he understands the true nature of the criminal, that the acts alone do not define the man, but that it goes deeper than that, it involves his place within the whole, so he can trust the man, because he knows the man for what he is, the man cannot betray him. He is kind to all because he knows that to do otherwise is not beneficial. That's a simplistic description, but I have to get up to take the bus early tomorrow. Two and a half hours there and back. It's times like that, when you leave at 5am and get back at 8pm that it really helps to be in harmony, because if you're not it can really make you cranky. hehehe... Anyways, good night and if I have time I'll hop on tomorrow. This is one of my favorite passages, many of the chapters in the 40s are, so it will be nice to see other people's opinions. Aaron

Those who know the truth will not tell you the truth and those that do, do not know. I'm not sure how to explain it any simpler, but thank you for providing an example of why this phrase is accurate. Aaron

I'd say it has less to do with moths to a flame, than it does with basic human needs. The need to feel wanted. The need to feel loved. The need to feel desired. All three are different, but linked to the same thing, a desire to have someone value you, even if in this case the value is based on sex appeal. The problem with most of these girls is that they were screwed up well before they ever arrived at the Playboy Mansion. A normal girl (and I rarely use the word normal, but use it in this context to refer to what most girls might do) would never think of Playboy as a career opportunity, nor would they think of having sex with an eighty plus year old man as a pleasurable thing. In regards to women and men, I think the problem is that we are too wrapped up in differences that we don't realize that much of is only biological. I know women who love football and men who love to sew. The nice thing these days is that lines are slowly blurring, so a man can be sensitive and woman can be tough, without having to feel like they are trapped in a role. This is occurring in the East as well, if a bit slower. Aaron

Hello Vaj, I'm not demonizing you, I'm making a point. I'll paraphrase a line from a show I watched with my brother the other night, "If a kindergartner bites a child, then bites another one the next week, well people are going to start to think of the kid as a biter." If you continually behave in a certain way, people begin to think of you in regards to how you behave. I'm not the most moderate person, I admit, but I do hold to the notion that I have no right to dismiss or belittle anyone's beliefs. I try to be respectful whenever I can and accept responsibility when I'm wrong. You are a nice guy, but I look at what you claim to have achieved and how you actually act and the two seem to be way off base. One who has achieved such marvels as traveling in astral form to different planets, remembering numerous past lives, and attained heightened degrees of enlightenment should be able to see how much discord his actions bring to others. He should understand that he is behaving in a way that is very self-involved, that though he may believe he is doing this altruistically, that most people seem to view it as a sort of fanatical behavior instead. Also your repeated avoidance of the topic of right speech and right action confuses me. You either say I don't understand what it is, or misdirect the conversation towards another topic, or just ignore it all together. This kind of behavior tells me that you are not accepting responsibility for your own behavior and that you have a skewed understanding of both paths. Right View may be the most glamorous of the paths, but it is worthless unless you follow the other seven, not just by word of mouth, but through actual practice. I am getting a bit confused because it seems like people repeatedly point this out to you, not just me, and you repeatedly seem to be unable to understand or accept your actions for what they are. (And I am more than willing to bet that you wont now either.) I don't want to argue with you about this, I would just like to see you lighten up a little, and not take it all so seriously, because it's not that serious. If you think it is, then maybe it's time for you to step back and take another look. Aaron

Hello Vaj, I think most Buddhists here disagree with your views of Buddhism, they are just actual Buddhists, so rather than say this, they follow the teachings of Buddha and don't criticize you. Those that follow your lead are most likely not actual Buddhists, but rather people who have a misunderstanding of what Buddhism teachers or have twisted it to serve their own behavior. This is the problem I see with many fanatics, they justify their actions, take minimal responsibility, even then often giving some excuse for that, and essentially do whatever they want to do under the auspice of Buddha's teachings. So, you can mock a race, addicts, people, and religions, because you're not attached, so it's alright. You can do whatever you want, so long as you're not attached to those actions. You can be a complete pompous ass, just so long as you aren't attached, and thereby waive your obligation to right speech and right action, because, of course, you follow the most important of the eightfold path, right view, which is really the only important one. Of course any Buddhist who heard someone say this would find it perplexing how someone could come to this understanding, but perhaps that's just me. I am attached to this conversation, in the sense that I know you're giving a twisted interpretation of Buddhism and that your actions do more harm than good, at least in others perception of Buddhism. They see what you and your motley crue do and they think that's an example of what Buddhism is, when it isn't. My own advice is that people should go to their local temple if they want to learn about Buddhism and not an online forum. Forums are best for people who already know about the subject enough that they can spot the BS. Aaron

In another thread the idea came up that in the Buddhist view all people who are enlightened are Buddhas. In other words you could say that Jesus was a Buddha and Lao Tzu was a Buddha, and perhaps Socrates was as well. The issue with many people is that this is very much an ethnocentric approach that seems to place Buddhism as the ultimate truth and any other religion as a watered down version at best. Perhaps this view is true, but I think that it is still worth examining the idea that all enlightened people have had the same core experiences and that's what I wanted to really discuss in this thread. So we have started many threads on the idea of what enlightenment really is and what I've come to understand is that the definition of enlightenment is relative, in other words the definition varies depending on who you ask. What I think we can all agree on is that the term enlightenment is meant to refer to someone who has had a transcendental experience. My question is this, if all prophets are Buddha, then how can they come to their conclusions by following paths that radically differ from Buddha's? It seems to me that if the statement, "all prophets are Buddhas" is true, then Buddhism alone isn't the sole answer to easing suffering or understanding the nature of the universe, but rather the elements that allow one to become enlightened really rely less on ideology and more on personal experience. If this is true, then the phrase "Hold nothing holy" takes on an entirely different meaning. In essence it is not the thought and ideas that transform someone, but rather the actual experience. I could go on about this, but I think I've said my peace and what I'd like to hear now is what other people feel about this. I look forward to your opinions. Behave as you wish, compassion is not required nor am I going to advocate it. You are who you are, so be who you are. Aaron

removed... Compassion does not exclude others beliefs and idea. Aaron

I think you're mistaking them for different debates, really it's just a few "Buddhists" who take every chance they can get to espouse the superiority of their beliefs. The debate never dies, it just sort of reaches out with its dark wispy tendrils and infests every place it can find. Aaron

Hello Mewtwo, I've never heard this said in this way before, but it is absolutely true. What you'll hear from many "enlightened" souls who are more than happy to espouse their own brand of enlightenment on blogs and websites and cult like forums, is that you are not right, that you need to change something to become right. It's all bullshit. You are absolutely, undoubtedly, unquestioningly perfect as you are. You are enlightened, only most people are not aware of it, they haven't realized it. When Lao Tzu says "you don't need to be anything but yourself" he's absolutely right, because you can't become enlightened by being anything but yourself. Enlightenment isn't transcendence or becoming something different, but rather realizing exactly what you actually are. If that requires being something you aren't then how can it be achieved? I remember this life and this life alone, but in this life I have learned that there is no truth, that truth is relative and that every truth is also a lie, so just because something sounds good, don't accept it as being good or evil. Be wary of those who claim the truth, because those who know the truth will not tell you the truth, and those that do, do not know it. So listen to others, then listen to your heart, if your heart says no, then most likely the answer is no. Aaron

Hello Everything, I'm sure plenty of people have already given you answers, but I thought I'd give you my understanding of this passage. What this passage talks about is Te, or High Virtue. The reason that the sage can be kind to the unkind and trust the untrustworthy is because of Te. Whoever translated this passage left out Te, or virtue, in the translation, thus you miss the overall meaning. I would recommend finding a different translation to read. As far as Te goes, I'm sure after all the various threads regarding Te and Virture we've had, you already have a good understanding of what that is. Aaron

Well you may be the only animal, but not the only mammal. Aaron

Chapter 47 John C. H. Wu Without going out of your door, You can know the ways of the world. Without peeping through your window, You can see the Way of Heaven. The farther you go, The less you know. Thus, the Sage knows without travelling, Sees vithout looking, And achieves without Ado. Gia-fu Feng and Jane English Without going outside, you may know the whole world. Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven. The farther you go, the less you know. Thus the sage knows without traveling; He sees without looking; He works without doing. Robert G. Henricks 1. No need to leave your door to know the whole world; 2. No need to peer through your windows to know the Way of Heaven. 3. The farther you go, the less you know. 4. Therefore the Sage knows without going, 5. Names without seeing, 6. And completes without doing a thing. ---------------- Now what do you think about that? Hmm...?