Aaron

I am of the mind that it comes down to the idea of detachment. Where as Buddhist believe that attachment to things is the root of suffering, Taoists believe that attachment to things eases suffering. A Taoists strives to work in harmony with the world around them and believes that by doing so they ease suffering, for themselves and others. A Buddhist believes that one must detach from the world in order to be free of suffering (but only for themselves). I think that the similarities between the two are striking, but I think much of that has to do with their relationships to Hinduism, rather than the spontaneous understanding of two wise men thousands of miles apart. The early Taoists and Buddhists both were familiar with the various schools of Hinduism, in particular Vedanta and seeing the inherent wisdom within it, accepted what they could and came up with conclusions regarding the rest. In a way, if it wasn't for Hinduism, which many consider the oldest religion in the world, I don't think we would have either Taoism, Buddhism, or many other religions. Honestly, it is a wellspring of wisdom commonly overlooked. I would encourage anyone who follows either to at least take a cursory look, and I'm sure once they do, they will have no problems seeing the similarities. I think it's also important to remember that Buddha and Lao Tzu were just men. I don't think either of them walked on water or performed any kind of miracles, but rather they were ordinary people with extraordinary insight and understanding. The mythos that came after was tied to this idea that man cannot be extraordinary or have any kind of insight that transcends human-being, so they essentially created a mythology that allowed them to accept their teachings as being divine, rather than accept them as being philosophically sound. Aaron

Hello Seth, I'm not sure I would agree entirely, but I know what you're saying. Are there actual experiences that transcend religion and ideology, the programming and preconditioning of the mind? I think there are. Are there just as many that are induced by these things, most certainly. I think this is the whole reason for transmission, to ensure what is experienced by the student, is the exact same thing as the master, over and over, through the ages. I think in a way it's kind of egotistical, this idea that these experiences are so important that they can't be lost or altered in any way. One would think if they really were that important, that altering them wouldn't matter. I've been saying this a lot lately, because I think it's the one aspect of Buddhism many Buddhists fail to understand, if you hold nothing sacred then nothing can be profane. It is essential if one wishes to be free of attachments, in the sense that so long as you hold something sacred, then you are attached to it. Anyways, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with teaching someone else, but I think that it's important to remember that the teacher can learn as much from the student as the student can from the teacher. If a teacher goes into this relationship believing they are the only ones that have anything to give, then they probably should not be teachers in the first place. Aaron

Hello Seth, When I experienced what you refer to as a deep union with the Godhead, I didn't actually recognize it as intelligent at all, but rather just a state of being. In other words my realization was that we were all one and I experienced this oneness with a flash of insight. For me it was the knowledge that I was not just connected to everything in existence, but that I was literally everything in existence. I am "It", as I am prone to say. I think I would've liked the Godhead to be an intelligent being, to have a conscious impact on this world, but the best I can describe it as, is a consciousness without intention. In other words it isn't an intelligence in the context of what we consider intelligence to be, so far as it does not work along the presumptions of logic and reason, but rather it is the embodiment of being throughout everything that exists. Again, if you could elaborate on this one aspect, I'd be greatly interested in hearing how you came to this understanding. Aaron edit- I should also add that the actual insight involved a metaphysical experience whereby everything seemed to fade away leaving only this "oneness" behind. When I reach(ed) this state there seems to be only light, but nothing material. (I didn't consider it to be the Godhead for a long time, but when I later came upon the definition of the Godhead, I realized that it may be what I experience.) It is immensely peaceful and serene, but I do not consider it to be blissful, but rather just a state of being whereby you have no desire for anything else, complete satisfaction may be a better way of explaining it.

Jack, Laugh if you want, but it's true. I try to be open to other ideas, but in the same way I don't care to be told I'm wrong, you don't seem to care for that either. I don't care to have my experiences trivialized, you don't either. Since we began talking about a month ago I have a read more on Buddhism, Mahayana and Theravada than I have in the entire time I've studied Eastern Religions. I may be obstinate, but I try very hard to humble myself, to remind myself that I don't know everything. As Vaj commented earlier, I was saying the exact same thing you've been saying, except I wasn't saying it the same way. The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I understand that my beliefs aren't so far off from what Buddha taught. I understand that my experiences have only touched the surface, that I have further to go, but my point is that when we share our experiences as ultimates, as the final truths, sometimes we cut people off from understanding. I think we could all use a dose of humility. I am finding humility on a daily basis. I had to sell my car in order to pay rent. I took out a loan that I can't pay back, just to try and make ends meet. I have no job and I am having to earn money each day just to eat. This state has made me appreciate those things I took for granted, but it's also reminded me of suffering in very real way. I would love to have an end to suffering, but I have yet to see any real proof that what Buddhism has to offer in the end will really free me from it, rather I think it will only allow me to understand it in a greater way. Regardless I am practicing Zen and trying to remember that it is only this moment that's important, that if I lose everything, my cats, my family, and my home, that it's not the end, that those things do not define who I am as a person. My cup is not empty, but it's not full. I want to be open to new things. I think the worst thing a man can do is shut himself off to possibilities, because when he does that, he no longer has hope. I am finding an immense degree of peace knowing that it is more than just survival, that I am not the center of the universe, that I am not God, omniscient, that there is more to everything than I can ever dream of. I don't hate Buddhism, or Buddha, but I do hate ignorance, or at least the inability to accept that things aren't perfect. Even if Buddha's teachings were perfect, that doesn't mean that those who practice them today are. That doesn't mean that there isn't more than just Buddha's teachings, that someone else doesn't have something else to teach us. I love Vedanta, but I realize that it isn't the entirety of truth, that there is more. Buddha obviously did too. I loved Christianity, but I understand that it isn't the entirety of truth. My point is that I want to be open so I don't miss out on something that might come along and help me to understand who I am more clearly. I never want to get to the point where I say, "this is enough, I don't need anymore." I should have been more open to your Buddhist ideas, but I am forty one years old and I'm just not willing to spend the next twenty years practicing Buddhism alone under the pretense that it may be right. I just don't have the time for that. I have an immense respect for the religion and I honestly think that if all people practiced the eightfold path, that the world would be a much better place. These days I break that path down into one simple phrase, "treat all things as compassionately as possible." Will I always do this? No. I'm human and fallible, but if I commit to doing this, go into it with the idea that I will not try, but I will do, then I'm confident that I can make the world better for those around me, and that's what's really important, not easing my suffering but easing the suffering of others. So I apologize to you and to Cowtao for not being patient and not explaining my misgivings as I should have. I would not discourage you from practicing Buddhism, it's a beautiful religion. I would only say don't close your heart to other things. Be open to possibilities so that if one does come along you don't miss it. Aaron

I understand what you're saying. Essentially that Buddhism would still be the same. My point is that Buddhism is more than just a word, it's the assimilation of various ideas and experiences that have amassed throughout the centuries. These ideas are critical to our understanding of Buddhism today. The reason for this is because we have something to relate these ideas to and in relating to them, equate a value in regards to those ideas. Yes Buddhism is Buddhism, that's the truth, but in the same way Buddhism is more than that, it's related to many other things and removing those relationships would change what Buddhism is (which means saying that it's the truth is a lie). Our appreciation of Buddhism does not stem solely from the tenets and ideology, but also our experiences in relation to those tenets and ideologies. Remove suffering from the equation for instance, or remove Buddha, and what do you have? That is my point, that Buddhism is what it is because of how it is linked to everything else. It's the fact that we can relate to it that makes this construct recognizable and something that we can identify with. Now as a Buddhist one must wonder, is Buddhism real at all? Well of course it's real, but it's not real either. Aaron

Well I challenge you to find one that isn't. I'm sure you think it's an authentic experience, but keep in mind if it comes from transmission, then the chances that you'll explain it differently than someone else who experienced it through transmission is very slim, since the whole purpose of transmission is to ensure that you have the "authentic" experience. It's not really a knock on you, just an observation. Otherwise I refer you to the actual "Buddhist's Handbook". The description of the phenomena you and others talk about is very similar, hence the reason I made the comment. Aaron

Actually no. When there is only one thing, that is the original source. Buddhism is a construct of the mind, not a reality mind you. It is an experience that can be defined by its ideology and philosophy. These ideas are contrasted with other ideas, hence the reason it is a distinct philosophy. The reason you follow it is because you can identify those parts that appeal to you, compassion for instance. The key is to look at the different concepts and how they are linked. For instance cruelty and compassion are the opposites of the same experience. We prefer one aspect of the experience more than the other, but we could not really appreciate that experience without having something to refer it to, the negative aspect of that experience. In the same way, yes you may have Buddhism, but not in the same sense that you experience it now, because there would be no way for you to actually appreciate it. Or as Lao Tzu said, "If all the world saw beauty as beauty, that in itself would be ugly." We all like to think how nice it would be to have simply one world religion, but then we would have to decide which religion? Of course the answer is the one that "I" think is best. That's the problem though, what "I" think is best, may not be what you think is best. That's why I say appreciate the differences. Aaron edit- when there is nothing that is the source. If there is only one thing, then that is the force of creation. Sorry for confusing that.

Well hopefully he had fun. I guess my point is that he doesn't seem to be intentionally condescending. You can tell when he intends to be rude. Yes he might think he knows the truth, but his actions seem genuinely motivated by the idea that he "knows" the truth, so he's not saying things to be rude or arrogant, unless you piss him off, then he becomes rude or arrogant. I personally may disagree with Vaj, but he is one of the few Buddhists on this site I'm willing to discuss things with. Also he is more prone to explain things in his own words, which I think is an admirable quality. Aaron

Hello Jack, You happen to be one of the others I'm talking about when I responded to Cowtao. It's nice to see you continue to appreciate the more extreme forms of compassion, i.e. ridiculing and diminishing others. Buddha is rooting for you I'm sure. Aaron

Hello Cowtao, Thanks for correcting my grammar, it's much appreciated. Your compassionate conduct is truly a gem by which all Buddhists should cling. *bow* One of the reasons I never listen(ed) to what you (and some others) say is because you don't seem authentic. Everything you say is scripted, as if you're repeating what you've already heard. I think it's hard to consider someone to have had an authentic experience, when you can read what they say they've experienced almost verbatim from the Buddhist Handbook. Perhaps if you explained the experience using your own words, it would make it more plausible. Anyways, good luck on the Buddhist crusade, I'm sure Buddha's rooting for you. Aaron edited in order to express my tenants more clearly.

There is an experience of Buddhism that stems from no belief to belief. You can't have belief without something to refer it to, no-belief. If there is only belief, there is no point of reference. Aaron

Hello Juju, I'm just saying, don't be a hypocrite essentially (not you per se, but generally speaking). Don't call yourself something just because you agree with the philosophy. I believe that vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle, but I eat meat, so I don't call myself a vegetarian. In the same way, there are many people who seem to philosophically agree with Buddhism, but don't follow the tenants. To be completely honest, I don't think Buddhism is any better than Christianity or any other religion (or philosophy), but it definitely isn't any worse either. I try to be compassionate, honestly. Do I get angry? Sometimes, but I admit it, address it, and move on. I don't presume to call myself a Taoist or Buddhist, because I don't practice those philosophies. I simply try to be what I am. I have no deep held beliefs anymore and I find that if someone tells me something that sounds reasonable, I am more than happy to examine it. I've spent the good part of the last several months studying Zen, even though I have no particular interest in Buddhism, simply because someone explained the concept of what Zen is and it made sense to me. I am not a Zen Buddhist mind you, but I do appreciate many of their beliefs (sans the religious dogma). Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Hold nothing to your bosom and nothing can be taken away. All these things I say are dust and don't matter at all, unless you think they matter. In fact even thinking they matter doesn't change anything, it just creates the illusion that they matter. So in the end arguing about all of this stuff is silly, because it is all just dust. Now why do I discuss these things, because my cup is empty and I am willing to be filled. Aaron

There are no such things as facts, but I like to say that, it adds emphasis. As far as other people, there are some members who I don't bother reading their posts anymore because they show a sincere lack of concern for others ideas. For many it's Buddhism or nothing at all. I prefer to not call myself anything or adhere to any codes of conducts. Anyways, I'm sure you didn't mean to insult anyone and of course we can all get riled up, just a prodding of sorts to point out what I thought needed to be. It's not meant to be a reflection of who you are (and aren't). I like to keep in mind that the only reason we can have Buddhism is because there is such a thing as no-Buddhism. So appreciate that others don't follow your path and that because they don't you can. Aaron

Hello Juju, The idea is that you are as compassionate as possible in every action. You do not insult or belittle others to prove a point, but rather state your point. In all things show compassion, even when you are correcting your child. I used to believe in corporal punishment, but recently I've changed my opinion. I don't think there is any incident that justifies striking a child or screaming at a child, even if they run out in traffic. There are ways to discipline that teach without humiliating or harming the child. Now in my non-Buddhist opinion, compassion is not always black and white, in fact compassion is intricately linked to cruelty. Because of this it is easy for us to interpret acts of cruelty as being acts of compassion. I've said this before and I'll say it again, hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Don't call yourself one thing or another and you will not be held to any standards. If you choose to call yourself a Buddhist, then don't be upset if someone points out that you are not following the tenants of your religion. Aaron edit- Being a little submissive is also a sign of humility, that you are not holding yourself to be more important than another. That doesn't mean if someone is hitting you, that you don't stop them, just that, again, you do everything as compassionately as possible, with no excuses.

Hello Rex, The difference is that I'm not a Buddhist. I am not advocating a religion and thereby bringing about the notion that I actually follow the practices of that religion. I'm also not saying things like, "new age people like you" in a derogatory manner. It seems the Buddhists want to preach but not practice. They want to pick and choose, not follow the whole path. It seems to me that Buddhists have no problem bullying, threatening, and insulting people on this forum. What I want to know is why they think this is allowable? They preach detachment, but they are attached to everything they say. They want tolerance, but they don't believe they need to be tolerant of others. I'm sure that if you followed the entire context of this discussion and numerous other discussion on other threads you'd become aware of this fact. I think it's about time that we examined the preachers by their practice. If they can't practice even the most basic tenants of their religion, then why should we have to hold anything they say about their experience to be valid? (That last part wasn't directed at Pero, but a general statement.) Aaron

That's the comment. But also examine your intent, the way your comments come across. The fact is you're attached to the topic and that's fine, but remember that Buddhist debate requires one to detach from the topic, even when debating a non-Buddhist. With that said, you can behave any way you want. Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Yet if you desire to follow a certain path, it is recommended that you follow the tenants, but remember that these tenants are not the focus, rather they are the tool that helps to whittle away the focus. Even better yet, come to an understanding without abiding by the notion of right or wrong, but merely remember compassion, then you are well ahead of the game. Aaron

Hello Pero, Again, how many times does one have to remind Buddhists of the eightfold path? Do you folks believe that the eightfold path is optional, or that you can pick and choose which of them to practice? Right speech, right action. Do not insult or denigrate, treat others with compassion. You are dismissing and diminishing Seth because you are attached to a concept. Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Seth is entitled to his opinion, and unlike you, is not supposed to follow a code of conduct when he discusses it. I would suggest before you continue your claims of being a Buddhist, you learn a bit more about how one is supposed to act. Examine the eightfold path, then come back and continue your discussion. If you can't follow the very basic tenants of your religion, then how can you expect anyone to take what you have to say seriously? Aaron Edit- You're not the only one that's doing this, but I often scan a topic in reverse and caught this one first. I have noticed Juju and others as well. I would suggest that before anyone continues their claims of being a Buddhist they actually review the eightfold path. If you can't follow the very basic teachings, then do not presume to teach what comes after.

Hello Vaj, You are assuming much. If you had read any of my other posts where I explain my concept of God, you would understand I rarely ever call "It" God, because I think the mere mentioning of that phrase engenders a predisposition to exactly what you're explaining. You assume much, but have no proof for what you assume, except for hypothesis. Who has come back from the grave and said, "I have broken free of the cycle of Dharma!" If they did, then they would prove that they haven't, because merely by being present in this life we are a part of that cycle. My argument is that there is nothing and everything. I do not advocate any salvation from Dharma or sins, but rather urge others to seek God within them and without and by finding God they can understand the nature of their existence. I have experienced this, which is why I say I am enlightened, but really there is no enlightenment, there just is. If one presses the issue, then we are enlightened now, just not aware. Remember that even believing there is no truth is a truth. To hold something to be true or false is the first sign of attachment. Nothing is sacred, nor infallible. Merely by being infallible, something must also be fallible, for the experience of both is intertwined. Merely by being aware, one must also be unaware. That is the truth that is also a lie, because truth and lies are intertwined and cannot be separated, even if one defines them. The sacred is profane. Hold nothing sacred and nothing can be profane. Hold nothing to your bosom and nothing can be taken away. That is the truth of detachment which is misunderstood. In order to be detached one must also be attached. The experience is intertwined. If you claim detachment, merely by claiming detachment you are attached to it. There is no such thing as detachment, there just is. It has taken me some time to understand this and I don't presume that you will understand it overnight, or maybe you have an intellectual understanding but reject it. That is fine. When I say you do not need Buddha, it is because Buddha has not taught anything you do not already know. You do not need to be taught if you are willing to pay attention. By paying attention you can learn without having to be taught. The key is to understand that there can be no void without substance. There can be no life without death. If we do not die, then how can we ever be alive? When one ceases to return to this world, they have not broken free of Dharma, but rather they have returned to the original state, a state that did not exist before, but has always been. If someone comes to you and says, "I have broken free of Dharma" they are not lying, but they are not telling the truth either. Will I be gone when I die? No. Will I be here? I do not know. If I have learned my lesson, then I am sure I will not be me anymore, but I will still be. The fact that I will no be Aaron, does not mean that I will not be, because Aaron is already a part of everything that exists. Aaron is also nothing. When Aaron dies he will cease to be, but I will still be, just I will not be as I am. I hope that helps to explain a bit more about what I believe. Just remember that none of this can be true, unless it is also a lie. Aaron

The problem Vaj is you say this, but I don't think you believe it. The way you present things as facts seems to say the exact opposite. I would recommend you reacquaint yourself with the eightfold path before you continue to interact with others on this forum. In particular pay attention to right action and right speech, two areas I think you (and a few other Buddhists on this forum) could use a refresher. Debate was only continued so long as one could remain detached from their position. In many cases a participant would take a stance completely opposite of what he believed in order to understand the dialogue more clearly. You don't seem to be debating at all, but rather arguing, which is a completely different manner of expression. This is the reason you say you will leave, but don't. You are attached to this discussion. You are a man. A flower is a flower. Words are just dust. Remember that. Aaron

Hello Vaj, This isn't a pissing contest. For all of your enlightened experiences, you have obviously not learned that. I don't care what you claim to experience. The master teaches through practice, not preaching. You preach too much and practice too little. Enjoy your trips to the cosmos, I will enjoy what I have here where I am. Compassion is not tough love, it is easing the suffering of others. Practice the eightfold path, then come and talk to me about the Jhanas. I find it astounding that you claim all this knowledge, but practice none of what is taught. Perhaps because of your advanced state you are beyond that. Good for you. The next time you feel like you are doing something you have no control over, ask yourself, where is the Buddha now? Don't confuse knowledge with practice, or religion with spirituality, they are distinctly different things. I would've hoped your absence from the forum would've granted you some insight into your actions, but regrettably it doesn't seem to have done much. Peace be with you. Aaron

I would say you should allow them to figure it out on their own whenever they can. Aaron

That's the problem Vaj, your cup is full, how can anyone give you anymore tea? Empty your cup and listen for a second. A man is a man. A flower is a flower. I am here right now. You are here right now. God is here right now. Take it all away and it is gone. Asking what is a man does not mean you will have an answer that is satisfactory. Quit worrying about what a man is and just be a man. Quit worrying about what Buddha said and instead close your eyes and listen to the world around you. The trick is not to close your eyes and concentrate to the point that you don't hear the bees buzzing, but rather to close your eyes and listen, to let the bees buzz, let the cars pass by and be in this place that you are at. Without knowing where you are at, you will never know what you are, because what you are is intricately linked to where you are. I have said this so many times I think it should be my mantra. I am "It", you are "It", we all are "It". Have I seen past myself? Yes. But I know I am myself. Even in knowing that I am "It". God is me and God is you. Close your eyes and you see God. Open your eyes and you see God. Destroy the world and God will create it again. That's the truth, but it's also a lie, because you can't have the truth without a lie. I am a man, but I am not a man. I am a body, mind, and spirit, but I am not one without the other, but I am still am when they are separate. I am still "It" even if I am not I. To say that thought is an illusion is true, but thought is real, just as you are real. To say that the flower is not really there is true, but it is also there. Close your eyes and the flower is still there. You smell it and feel it, even if you do not see it. That is what you're missing. I am not Buddha, but I don't have to be to see that you are throwing darts at the dartboard, hoping to hit the bullseye. Stop throwing darts and forget about the bullseye. When you can do that then I think you will do much better. Buddha does not need a defender, nor does he need you, but you seem to think you need Buddha. You don't, you just think you do. Aaron

The Zen masters talk about how one should interact with the world once they reach enlightenment. The consensus seems to be that once you have reached "true" enlightenment, that you should chop wood, carry water, take a shit, and wash your hands. The key is being aware while you are doing these things. If you are having trouble adapting to the world again, it seems to make sense, especially if you haven't done these things in a long time. From someone who has had the same experience, even down to the doubt about myself for struggling to adapt, what I can say is that when we struggle there is reason for it. You seem to know why you are struggling, so I would suggest quit struggling and just do. Do what you have to, but remember that what you do is not who you are. A man may tend a garden, but that doesn't make him a gardener. A man may bake bread, but that does not make him a baker. Be what you are (and are not) and don't worry about the rest. Aaron

Hello Vaj, What I see is the literal transmission of knowledge without experience. I have experienced enlightenment directly and I don't feel the need to say that "I know this is the absolute truth", because I know the truth is only within my mind, it is merely an illusion, nothing I know is sacred. You can say, "this is a lie, I know the truth," but I know the truth is that you are a man and I am a man, and that we are no more knowledgeable about the truth than the squirrel gathering nuts for the winter. When a man walks down the street and stops to watch a gardener tend his garden, sees the gardener knows what he is doing by the fruit that his garden bears, then he will ask the gardener how he should tend his own garden. The master does not seek the student, the student seeks the master. The master does not proclaim his knowledge, but rather is known because of his practice. The truth lies in breathing each breath without thinking about that breath, the ability to live in the moment aware that this moment is the entirety of everything and nothing, all within the space of that breath. Give up what you have learned and then you will realize the truth of what you have learned. Give up your independence and then you will gain independence. Give up your freedom and you will be free. It's as simple as that. Aaron

I think the irony is that most of the people that are introduced to Buddhism on this site, probably have the same image of Buddhists as they do Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. In defense of Buddhism, if you meet Buddhists in the real world, they are not nearly as dogmatic or serious about all this. It's more of a, if you're interested that's fine, if not, that's fine too, kind of attitude. The people on this website do not represent the majority of Buddhists, just try and keep that in mind. Aaron