Aaron

Hello Steve, Even if I might not entirely agree, very well said. I liked your comparison very much and I can even agree with you regarding the similarities, I guess where I diverge is that the general conception of Tao given in the Tao Teh Ching doesn't seem to be in line with what Brahman is described as. Still in my strictly secular opinion, you hit it right on the nail. Aaron

We've already had this talk. Yes I think that he refers to more than one Tao and you, I am certain now, do not. Lets agree to disagree here. Of course even if you want to take the position that there is just one Tao, it could not be compared to Brahman for the same reasons. At best it could be seen as an aspect of Brahman. Aaron edit- Also, from my meager understanding of Chinese, tao is translated most closely as "way" and could be used in the same context in Chinese, so one could literally say "tao of cooking chicken" and mean the way of cooking chicken. Are any Chinese experts (CD perhaps) that might be able to shed light on how accurate that statement is?

Hello Vaj, My point was that it was the most Hindu, not that it was Hindu. I agree that both religions influenced each other, it would be hard not to see that. Aaron edit- And just to clarify, I'm not a Buddhist basher, just a firm believer that there is no truth, nor should one advocate truths.

Hello Matt, When one compares the Brahman and Tao it's easy to confuse the two at first. The main difference is that the Tao is not a physical manifestation, but rather a process (and even this is a leap in definition). Now the tricky thing with tao is that there are more than one, the tao(s) that can be talked about and the Tao (big capital T) that can't. In this particular instance, I don't think that Lao Tzu would have compared Tao to Brahman, since Brahman is something that can, not only be described, but also is the entirety of existence. We hear things like "origin of heaven-and-earth" (notice the hyphens denote that it's all encompassing) and we believe that this could mean that the Tao is the same as Brahman, but in fact if one was to define Tao within Brahman, then one would have to say Tao was an aspect of Brahman, albeit an indescribable one. Aaron

Hello Fizix, I definitely find your outlook positive. I agree with much of it. In relation to the experience, I think seeing the actual experience does help us to relate better to others. The more I think of this, the more I begin to understand that it's not all about compassion and love, that it's also about cruelty and hate, that without them, there can be no compassion and love. Aaron

Yes but believing that the ego is an illusion is an attachment in its own right. Even if it's a liberating construct, that doesn't mean that you are not attached to it. If you truly want to be without attachments then you need to let that go as well. Perhaps it's easier to just say nothing is true? But then saying that is an attachment as well... I guess there's really no way to be free of attachment, because even detaching means you're attached to detachment. It really is a paradox. Aaron edit- I do want to point out I agree with you regarding there only being One. I call it "It", but One works too.

I would say that Hau Yen is one the most Hindu of all the Chinese Buddhist traditions. It's vision of the cosmos (very similar to the Vedanta cosmos), of the idea of universal goodness (Shiva ala Brahman), and the revelation of Sudhana, that he was and wasn't the cosmos (in other words we are all Brahman) almost feels like a Buddhist apologetic to the Hindus. Aaron

I'm currently reading "The World of Zen" by Nancy Wright Ross. It's an anthology and a bit on the dry side, but it really does have some excellent bits in it. Aaron

Hello Todd, I'm sure it will definitely help loosen the tightness. I haven't used this method in years, but I have begun to use it, even if only for self reflection in an attempt to understand what I might be missing. Of course that's the gist of this exercise, being willing to admit you might be wrong and that the other sides point of view has some validity. Aaron

What I liked about this is that you saw where you did wrong and rather than make excuses, you made amends. Beautiful. Aaron

I eat whatever is available, but I try to remember moderation. In my opinion what we eat isn't nearly as important as how much we eat. Too many people see food as a means to gratify their experience, rather than a means to satisfy their needs. Aaron

Hehehe... I wasn't really expecting a response to my statement. I thought it was a question that people might answer. The answer for me was quite simple. I agree with you Steve, you can never regain that innocence, but I think in part that is what allows for cruelty to exist. I don't necessarily believe we are cruel by nature, but rather at some point it became a way of behaving that we saw as normal. For me, I understand my capacity for evil, but I agree, it's in understanding that capacity that one truly begins to see the capacity for good, and also to appreciate the nature of compassion in its most purest sense. Aaron edit- I think even more important, is perceiving good and evil for what they are, merely constructs. So perhaps I should say, I can see my capacity for cruelty and compassion.

Hello Zhang, I think suicide is very much a topic of Eastern traditions. I don't think it's a particularly epic topic either, rather it's a good topic to start off with. I will take the side of anti-suicide, since I am actually pro-suicide. Also I would very much like this to be something that transcends academics. We don't need to sit around with points and cross points, but rather discuss things in a colloquial manner, touching on the points as we see it, common and down to earth. With that in mind, I am more than willing to start this off. Life is an experience that cannot be quantified by mere moments, but rather the entirety of the experience. That will be the focus of my argument, the idea that I believe will eventually persuade you to agree that suicide in any context is wrong. The experience that makes up life is special. We as human beings especially experience life in a unique manner that very few other species can understand. The notion that life should simply be valued by the quality of our current experience is the basis for which many would advocate suicide, that if one is currently suffering, that one should have the right to end that suffering, but one must also look at this idea and ask, why is the transient state more important than the overall experience? Why should one who is currently experiencing sadness or illness be expected to see the full value of their life with any kind of logical assessment? In fact they cannot be expected to and rather will see the value of that moment of their life that seems to overwhelm everything else. Allowing someone to commit suicide simply because they are sad or ill robs them of their essential right to life, to liberty, because death is not liberty in the end, not a liberty that anyone can prove to be of value. If one sees death as a logical solution to the end of their suffering, this in itself points to an inability to examine the value of life, simply because they are not examining the complete experience. In fact one would ask, if life's value is based on our current state or the state by which we will be expected to live, then why should we not allow infanticide or numerous other types of euthanasia as a means of easing suffering before it begins? The answer is of course that by doing so we are setting ourselves up as the supreme authority, claiming knowledge of our purpose and meaning, an authority that we do not have, nor have any right to claim. In fact we as human beings are fallible and this fallibility does not just extend to intellect, but also morality. If we are fallible in this regard, then how can we begin to believe that we have the ability to make a decision of our own about someone else's life, or that we should have the ability to decide whether or not someone should live or die based on their circumstances? If suicide is permissible, then what is to stop us from handing out pills to homeless people or the depressed? If it's permissible then what is to stop us from allowing disenfranchised teenagers the option at school? Why don't we set up rooms in high schools around the country where a saddened teenager can go and end it all, if they so choose? No need for permission slips, rather they just need to sign a form and be done with it? Why? Because we understand that the experience that occurs during one's life are transient, that what we experience now, isn't the entirety of that experience. That we cannot say a diamond has no value, simply because it has a flaw. In fact it is these flaws that give life value, and without them we can never see the beauty that life possesses. Aaron

Well it's more than just debating practice ZT, it's also learning to get in touch with the other side, understanding both points of view. After all if one looks at a topic, such as suicide, we have to look at both sides of the debate to understand it completely. Those that view life as sacred may oppose the idea of suicide, but there is also the idea that life can be sacred and suicide still allowable and permissible, but to understand exactly why, you must examine the subject, because in the end the subject is the foundation of the examination, not just the opposite extremes that one decides is important. It has a little to do with truth as well. When one begins to be able to debate things from both sides, they begin to understand that truth is arbitrary, but simply learning this in an intellectual capacity rarely works, sometimes it requires practice to fully understand it. That's why the Buddhist of ancient India were keen on this type of debate and also why middle school debate coaches still practice it. Aaron

Hmm... I was hoping for a more compelling argument, without the sarcasm. I should have added, try not to be sarcastic. Also I was hoping for a more site oriented topic, something to do with Eastern Studies or philosophy, but so be it... I'm sure one will pop up when it's time. Aaron

Am I the only one that found this attitude a bit condescending? Not you Walker, but the general Buddhist idea about Taoism and Taoists as it was told through your conversation. "Oh, yes, those funny little Taoists can become enlightened, but even a dog, if he tries long enough, will find a way to open a door." Just from the general nature of how they talk about Taoists, you hear a bit of contempt in their voices. Aaron

I like the culture where I'm at (Orlando). It's heavily influenced by Puerto Rico (and a little bit of Cuba). I'm very fond of the Latino culture and food. I especially enjoy Roast Pork, rice and beans, and stuffed potato balls. Mmmmm... now I'm hungry. Now I still love good old New England Clam Chowder and Shepherd's Pie, don't get my wrong, but it's a nice change of pace. It's funny, when I lived here as a teenager there were very few Latinos in Orlando, now they make up 40% of the population and I must say they've added character and life to the city. It's not so plain anymore. Aaron

Hi Mith, I'd like to hear more about your experiences in the Baha'i Faith if you'd care to share, especially how it led you to Sufism. Baha'i is something I don't know much about, so anything you have to share would be appreciated. Aaron

When I was much younger, as I've stated elsewhere, I dabbled in magic. At the time, without knowing it, I used it as others have described it, a way to make sense of the world, or at the very least, give the appearance of control. Over the course of time I ended up studying Magic scholastically a bit, in particular a few books and authors seemed to make sense of it all, at least to me. Frazer made incredible inroads into the understanding of the magic mindset with his examination of myth in the Golden Bough, but also Campbell's examination of the same topic in various volumes also helped me to understand this general need to explain and control what appears uncontrollable. In the early days of man, before we stumbled on Tao and Buddha and even Shiva, we only had nature to examine. Nature didn't always make sense, so we tried to make sense of it. We saw gods and spirits everywhere, the sun, the moon, even in the seasons, the virgin spring and old withered winter. How strange it must have been not to understand that the Earth rotated, that the sun wasn't rising and falling, but rather standing very still. How stranger still it must have been to wonder why it grew cold in the winter and warm in the summer, what force caused such things? I'm sure if you told men at one time that the Earth revolved around the Sun they would've thought you mad (and in fact they did.) The fact is Magic works because we believe it works. Magic is our way of making sense of the nonsensical. It was a means by which we could figure out how nature worked and also, if we were blessed by the spirits, control nature. It was this very basic desire that led us to modern religion, because well before Thoth, Shiva, and Zeus roamed the minds of men, there were cults devoted to Mother Earth, Aphrodite, etc. I've come to understand that magic doesn't work, all it does is change our perception of how things work. It allows us to believe, that if we do things in a certain way, that we can alter the course of nature. It's understandable that we, especially when we are young, seek out something like this, but it's also important to remember that Magic is no substitute for hard work and common sense. Aaron

I spent several years of my childhood in Maine. I remember waiting for the school bus standing next to snow banks taller than me. I was born in New York and lived there a few years as well, snow wasn't as bad. I spent the remainder of my childhood in Florida and eventually returned here after a ten year hiatus to Washington State. Florida is by far my favorite place to live, as long as the air conditioning is working. Aaron

I think the truth that hurt me the most was the potential for cruelty in man. Once someone sees the depth of pain one can inflict on another, it is very hard to come back to that place of innocence that once was there. Aaron

This is a great topic. I think for me I have to be reminded that the truth has different meanings and these meanings can change depending on the period of time we examine them in. The Ancient Persians believed truth was paramount and sacred. If you were caught in a lie you could be put to death, even if it was a trivial lie. Now the thing to remember is that the truth to the Persians was different than what we might consider it today. For the Persians the truth was a sign of a man's character, who they were as a person. If one was not truthful, then that defined them as being more than simply a liar, but a murderer, thief, and malcontent. This idea actually carried on through the centuries throughout many cultures, maybe not to the same extreme, but it definitely played a part in our perception of truthfulness and Truth with a capital T. When a man sought the truth, they were doing more than just trying to find an answer, they were searching deep within themselves for something that was not readily apparent. They were essentially learning about their true character, who they were at the root of their being, so when we examine this idea of truth today, in modern times, we can loose some of the significance of the idea of searching for truth, the noble pursuit it once was. A man who is searching for the truth, is doing more than relating what is real and what isn't, they are seeking a purpose within and without, examining their own nature, their own reality, one that is not just defined by the objects they can see and touch, but also those things that exist only within the corners of the mind, those things that arise only when reality has been wiped away. Can we ever know the truth? Perhaps not. Perhaps the problem is not that there is no Truth (with a capital T), but rather that we mistake many small truths for a singular greater Truth, and in doing so, end up lying to ourselves. Aaron

Just my own experience, I grew up in a Southern Baptist household and was a Christian until I turned twenty-one or so. At that point I had a spiritual experience that shook my belief in Christianity and I started to look at other religions. I first started to look at Buddhism, but at the time it seemed scary to me (don't ask me why now). I ended up really finding a connection in Taoism. My first experience with it was just the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu, it wasn't until a year or two into it that I started to read some of the formal books on the topic, such as Watts and the Tao of Pooh. In the last year I started to look into Vedanta and Buddhism again. Vedanta is a beautiful religion, with a great deal of insight into the mystery of man and the universe (imo). Buddhism is also a very beautiful religion. I find a great deal of wisdom within Zen and I've been studying that for about a year now. Great stuff out there. I'm a firm believer that man should always keep their minds open to new ideas. I've found wisdom in the most unlikely places. Aaron

Yes, everyone has made some very good points. I agree, Compassion, frugality, and never striving to be first (not competing or humility) are the key attributes of a sage, but I see them as also being key to working in harmony with the world around us. I'm not a Taoist per se, but I studied the Tao Teh Ching for nearly 20 years and it had a profound impact on my life. I think much of who I have become is a result of my understanding of the Tao Te Ching (and misunderstanding). Anyways, very nice thread. I think it's very important to be able to place these things in a personal context, at least if we sincerely desire to practice them. Aaron