Aaron

One thing I've been thinking a lot about lately is how things are related. I can't really appreciate laughter without crying for instance. So perhaps for me, it's not just about enjoying those things that make life pleasant, but also understanding the necessity for suffering. I am trying very hard not to look at hard times as simply splotches on the canvas of life, but rather the lines that define the picture. Aaron

And therein lies the rub. One would think that if this was true, then we would not have "enlightened" monks, who have received their transmission molesting children. One would think that you would not find them committing suicide. One would think you would not have them arguing about money to go to the movies, of course these are just the few examples that pop up off the top of my head, there are many more. My belief is that there is no freedom from stain, only the illusion of a freedom that exists within yourself, that you believe is no self. Hence, the enlightened are never free of vice, nor of humanity, rather they have only achieved an intellectual understanding of a topic to the point that they can convince those around them of their exalted status. In the end Buddhism is an illusion within an illusion. A truth within a lie. It only works so long as you believe it, once you stop, it all crumbles away, like mirrors in a fun house. Aaron

I love that story... I wasn't aware that it was Nan-in, my version only mentioned a master and a learned scholar. Aaron

So here it is again, the classic Buddhist defense, "study more." I would recommend you study something different, because what you're studying may have made you blind. Ignorance isn't just not knowing, but the state of believing that you know. Aaron

Remember when you were talking about ants? Well think of it like this, yes we are humans and there are billions of us, and if you look at us from afar we look quite similar, it is only when you look at us up closely that you can begin to see the differences. In the same way, we can't experience things the same way, because we are not residing within the same space. Simply because I am viewing something from one corner of the room and you another, means that our experiences regarding that something are different. Yes we may have seen the same thing, but perhaps your view point had more light or less, so you saw it differently than I did. The fact that we do experience things differently means that we are unique individuals. Yes there are universal experiences, but these universal experiences aren't really so universal, but rather quite common, so they are used to help us identify our own experiences with other people's experiences. The use of these universal experiences is itself an example of our uniqueness. If we were not unique we wouldn't need them to help relate our experience to other people's. So again, you are unique. Your mother is unique. I am unique, even though I have a twin who is genetically the same as I am, simply because we have all experienced things differently. I hope that helps. Aaron

The west isn't about individual identity at all. I'm not sure where you learned that, but you missed the greater message. The west is about nationalistic identity. You identify with your country or your culture and in so doing develop a patriotic bond towards that country. The Pledge of Allegiance is an excellent example of this. You are only encouraged to be yourself, so long as you work within the acceptable confines of society. You need to read up more on your native american cultures as well. In fact very few Native American tribes were warlike simply for the sake of violence. The coup stick comes to mind. I think there are very few similarities between Buddhism and the shamanistic religions of the Native Americans. Also I think this deification of the Dalai Lhama is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Once a man is viewed as infallible, then who watches him? Who ensures he is doing what is right? I brought this up in another thread and people said that I should be banned, there is evidence to support that the Dalai Lhama is aware of the abuse of children in monasteries in Tibet and Nepal, yet he has made no public comments about this abuse. The only comments he has made in the past are to those cases that have arisen in the West. I think it is entirely unlikely, having grown up in the monasteries, that he would be unaware of practices, that by all accounts have been going on for centuries. (The terms for the abusers and abused have actual names within the monastic community, yet it's not going on?) I think it is more than likely that the Dalai Lhama is keeping this covered up. I think anyone who can step back and view this impartially will have no problem seeing this, yet because of his status and his apparent "enlightenment" people refuse to accept that he may have done something wrong. Everyone can be that stupid. It just takes ignorance, the inability to see other peoples view points because you believe your own is without fault. I don't see Ralis as anti-buddhist at all. He is just stating facts, that anyone who approaches Buddhism impartially can see. He is not attacking Buddhism, but rather the ideology and corrupt nature of religion, which is evident within Buddhism as well. This is perhaps the most offensive comment in my opinion. Why do you say Westerners have a hard time bowing? Are you saying all Westerners or just certain ones? I know plenty of people who have no problem bowing. As far as the concepts you use, they aren't your own concepts, you are just repeating what can be found in the numerous sources of Buddhist suttras and texts. I think that's the problem with most of the Buddhists on this site, their arguments are always based on the same texts, much like a Christian's is based on the Bible. Any deviation from those texts is blasphemous, to say that reality may be different is a lie. There is no compromise. Ironically I can understand many things, including why the Dalai Lhama says nothing about certain things. I don't necessarily think he is evil or a bad man, he is simply a man who must make decisions within the moral constraints of society. If he says one thing, he risks losing support which he desperately needs. It's as simple as that. In the end you can say one thing over and over until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean it's true. In this case it just means you're well-versed in the dogma of the Buddhist religion. With that said, I like you, you're passionate and still possess the naivete of youth, which is a good thing, because you can still see the possible, something many of us old-timers (and middle-age timers) have a problem with. Aaron

Hello Vaj, I think you can believe whatever you want, but I don't think Buddha ceased to be human. He may have seen behind the illusion of self, but he did not cease to be human. I think what he points at, is that he is enlightened so he no longer is chained to the illusory existence, he has broken through. I don't think he literally means he is no longer human. If he did, then he was wrong, but he was human, so he can be wrong. I love it when you disagree with people and they say, practice more deeply and realize more clearly. I say this too, but only when I want to piss people off. One thing I'm sure of is that I've practiced more than I needed too. I just don't believe the same as you do, it's as simple as that. If you ask a Zen Roshi, "was Buddha human?" I'm sure they'd answer, "what does it matter if he was human?" Aaron

Hello folks, I'm not sure where to go with this. I think the problem still lies in following a belief without question. Perhaps that's what I like about Zen, if you approach a Roshi with the idea that you already know what Zen is, they will normally send you away. They don't want someone who "knows", they want someone who questions, who doesn't know. Now on the flip side, what I find most discouraging about Zen Buddhists is their rigidity in learning about Zen. Unless one learns exactly as the one before them, giving the exact answers given by those who have come before, then they cannot receive their transmission. I think the problem that most religions have and Buddhism has as well, is that we tend to view those who have become monks to be without reproach. The Buddhist monk is no different from the Christian Priest, or even the devout Imam, they are all capable of sin. When we cease to view these people as fallible, then who will watch those who watch over us? Buddha? God? Is that good enough? My point is that we are all human and we will never escape being human. Whether we realize samadhi or not, the body still exists and so long as it exists so does our propensity for fallibility. Aaron edit- Also, call me a bit odd, but I think if one is really looking for the answer within Buddhism then perhaps they need to look towards Japan.

Hello Noah, I think talking to someone is a good idea, especially if you're depressed right now. There is no need to suffer, so do what you have to to get better. As far as being ants, we really are ants, but remember ants serve a purpose, just because they are small doesn't mean they are meaningless. You have a purpose, even if there is something greater than you, that doesn't mean that your purpose has no meaning. In regards to someone like Hitler appearing as your mom did, well that's how Hitler ran Germany, because people didn't see him as a threat. The problem is that we are fallible creatures. We will make mistakes in judging people's characters and even our own character, but that doesn't mean that because we make these mistakes, we are ourselves bad people. The problem is that you are stuck on absolutes right now, good and evil, right and wrong, mothers and Hitler, when the reality is that you could never appreciate your mother if there were no Hitlers. Just like you could never appreciate right if there was no wrong. You need something to contrast it with to understand that it exists, otherwise it is just a null space with no point of reference. Don't worry so much about these things, rather I suggest you do this, stay clear of hallucinogenics, watch a comedy tonight, go to bed, wake up tomorrow, and go see your counselor. If you need to talk to someone, then talk to them. If you really need to talk to someone, then give me a PM and I'll be happy to listen. You are not alone in this world, in fact you have experienced something many others have. You will get through this, it just takes time to wrap yourself around it all. My first impulse was pretty similar to yours, but I got through it and eventually saw the beauty that exists with the ugly. Aaron

Hello Noahfor, As someone who has a bad trip or two, I can tell you first hand how devastating it can be. I don't think I'll ever be able to look at Star Trek Next Generation the same ever again. Anyways, you have gotten a skewed idea of no-self. I'll try and explain it as I understand it and how I relate it to my own experience, in the hopes that maybe it can lighten the load a bit. First you have to understand the basis for the idea of no-self comes from the idea that everything that exists come from nothing. This idea stems from the notion that everything is connected in some way. Love and hate for instance are not separate experiences, but the same experience viewed differently. Cold and Hot is an even better example, the difference between cold and heat is the relative temperature, but in the end it is still just temperature. With that said no-self and self are the same experience, just different aspects of that experience. We can understand self quite clearly because we live in self every day, but understanding no-self is confusing, because, having only remembered the experience of self, the notion of no-self either seems improbable or in your case, absolutely terrifying. No-self is really simply understanding yourself before you became self. It is understanding the nature of the universe, the void that existed before all things begin and understanding that this void still exists. To call it a void or nothing doesn't really explain it quite as it should, but without experiencing it, it is the closest description that one can come to. When I first experienced no-self, I had no real guidance and didn't perceive it simply as nothing, but rather the natural state of the universe and me, that underneath everything that existed there really was no-existence. The notion that this no-existence is intricately linked to existence didn't come until later. When people argue with me about this, it's really semantics that they are arguing about, because I understand the notion of what they are talking about, but have come to a different conclusion. Now the reason many traditions have lines of transmission is because of this simple fact. It allows someone to come to an understanding of no-self through a disciplined study that guides them in understanding how it fits into a specific ideology. I think, though, that the idea that one can be free of self is an illusion in itself, that you can't have no-self without self, nor existence without non-existence. To place value on one more than the other is silly, in the sense that both are required for the universe to exist and not exist. This is the important thing to remember, merely understanding the original state does not preclude an evaporation of the self, but rather it allows one to understand the illusion of pain and suffering, the illusion of even joy and happiness, that in the end we are not locked into this world, but rather choose to be a part of the illusion. If you really wish to understand the idea of no-self better I would recommend finding a Roshi and pursuing it further. In my own opinion the experience of someone who has come to an understanding of this phenomena is invaluable in fully understanding the notions presented. I'm positive most people will disagree with my own interpretation of it, but that doesn't matter, because in the end it doesn't matter. What matters is that we understand that anything we think matters only matters because we think it does. A flower is simply a flower, it is only the idea that we value the flower for one reason or another that attaches us to that flower. When we can begin to see a flower simply as a flower and person simply as a person, and in seeing that cease to place value on one more than another, then we can truly understand the nature of suffering and from that understanding the nature of compassion. I hope that helps to clarify it a bit. Aaron

One idea that I see pop up now and again is the idea that one's thoughts are more important than their actions. Many people seem to take this as a given. For instance, someone didn't intend to hurt another person, so that should be held into account. I think that's true, but on another level it's very easy to fall into this idea that what's really important are our intentions. In my opinion it's as easy as misinterpreting the words are and our. They may sound similar, but they have distinctly different meanings, just as intentions and actions have different meanings. On this forum and in the context of spirituality the difference between the two can take on an even deeper level of distinction. It calls into question the difference between practice and philosophy. Take for example one who chooses to join a monastery. Obviously if they do not practice the philosophy held holy by that monastery they will not last long. This isn't so for the layman, they are allowed a degree of leniency in that regard. As long as they hold the tenants of their religion to be holy, for the most part they are allowed to do what they want, within limit. I think this is part of the reason why many civilizations came to the conclusion that nothing should be held holy, that by defining what is holy, we are essentially restricting our actions. We are defining actions as being more important than intentions. We are saying that the holy man is the man who acts holy, while the man who is not is clearly unholy. This is in essence placing more of a value on a man's actions than their actual state of conscience. With that said, I think the question that becomes most important and the one I wont answer right now, is this, which is actually more important the action or the intention? Is it more important how a man thinks or how a man behaves, not simply from a sociological perspective, but from a psychological perspective as well? And even on a deeper level, should we aspire to social harmony or personal harmony? Anyways, I thought it might be an interesting discussion. Aaron

Yes, I understand what you're saying, I just don't think this chapter actually does stand alone as a definition. In fact I don't think it's much of a definition at all. I would like to see something a little less metaphorical and a bit more pragmatic. Anyways, if this is your definition and understanding, that's fine. Still, from my own experience, I think there are many other chapters one can bring into this conversation regarding Te and Virtue to fully understand the significance of Virtue in Taoism. Aaron

Hello Apech, This isn't an attack on your argument, I just wanted to point out some statements you make that I don't entirely agree with. The major one being the idea that settling down made it harder for human beings to survive. I think that the mere fact that after settling down the population, rather than stay static, increased exponentially tells us that it did in fact become easier to survive. Remember for around 200,000 years the number of human beings on the Earth remained relatively the same (or so we are told). I think what we can extrapolate from this is that during those 200,000 years we were able to survive as a people and prosper, not necessarily grow in population but live with a minimal effect on the environment. I liken our eventual agrarian lifestyle to the introduction of a foreign species on an environment. The species, which is used to surviving in a harsher environment, enters the new environment and thrives, dominating and damaging the new environment. For the last 12,000 years, we've been that foreign species, simply because we've changed the way that we lived. I'm not saying that we can't live in harmony with Tao, but I think it's a sure sign of the times, that the way we are living is the major cause of much of the disharmony in the world. Ease of life doesn't equal harmony. I think when one discusses Tao we cannot discount this, especially if we are claiming to be cultivators of Tao. Aaron

In regards to the meditation practices presented in the documentary in the OP, I would have to say that it seems genuine, but one should also remember that most modern illusionists use practices first used by Yogis to perform many of their stunts. These practices aren't spiritual entirely, but rather misdirections that allow one to do something without others knowing. Of course in the same way, in order to perform many of their illusions they still require a great deal of control over their body and metabolism. David Blaine went without food for 45 days and survived on just 4.5 liters of water a day, a feat many would say is impossible. One might ask if these meditation practices were signs of higher spiritual practice or simply a matter of learning to control the body's metabolism. The fact the sect of Buddhism that Ram hails from is very secretive about their techniques, tends to lend to the idea that this may all be an elaborate hoax. Regardless I rarely look at "miracles" as a sign of someone's spiritual progress, but rather their behavior. Beating people that disturb your meditation seems quite in line with what an eighteen year old boy would do, so I think Ram is progressing as expected. Aaron

Hello Chi, I think we've talked about this before, so you should know that I believe that Te is not virtue, but rather the resulting action that occurs from Tao. My question was simply do you believe that there are actual virtues attributed to Taoism. I'm still not entirely sure how you view Te, is it a single virtue or multiple virtues? My own personal opinion is that Te is an action that arises from Tao. There are virtues that men can perform, but I don't think it's possible to consciously perform Te, but rather it needs to arise spontaneously. I think that's what's being talked about here. Also I think it's important to differentiate between high virtue and virtue. An interesting way to think of it is that Tao is the creator, but Te is the process, or at least that seems to be how Lao Tzu is explaining it in this chapter. Aaron

Hello Chi, I understand this, my point is that it's not very specific. The passages you've translated are vague. Do you believe that the Tao Teh Ching is intentionally vague in this regard, or are there actual virtues one can attribute to Te and Tao? Compassion for instance? Aaron Aaron

Okay, so to make this more interesting, what exactly are the Taoist Virtues we are supposed to foster? Is it the three jewels or does it go deeper than that? How do we know what is Te and what isn't? If we simply use the definition "engendered from Tao" can we really have an actual answer or are we simply working on faith? Aaron

I want to start by saying that I am not looking for pity. Why would I say this, well simply because I am in perhaps the most desperate financial situation I've been in since childhood. It is entirely likely that within the next two weeks I will be evicted from my home and I will have no place to go. As a child my family was homeless more times than I can count, but as a child, so long as you have food and are kept reasonably comfortable, you're only minimally aware of what's really going on. I am fully aware of what is going on now and it is a bit unsettling. In the light of this my meditation has suffered greatly. Perhaps its a sign of my own inherent weakness and resolve, that in this crisis I lack the ability to let go of these things. I've spent the last few weeks reading books on Zen mostly and I've been attempting to practice it formally, even though I've been practicing a form of Zazen for decades informally. Normally meditation releases these stresses and allows me a degree of peace, but I guess everyone hits a block. My current situation has gotten me to the point where I am wondering what does all of it really mean? If life is suffering, can there really be an end to suffering? If you do your best to succeed and can still fail, where is the certainty in it all? Even knowing and honestly believing that I am not simply me, but more than that, the entirety of being and non-being, does not seem to matter if knowing this does not change the effects my actions will have on me and my family. Luckily my family is just me, my brother and two cats. I worry most about the cats. I don't want to take them to a shelter, because I'm afraid they'll put them to sleep. I've started to contact friends to see if anyone can take them, but so far no one has agreed. It's very tough on me. I don't want to see them suffer and I know they will. They've been with me since they were kittens and haven't known any other place than our home. Really, what does it matter? I keep looking at my life, all the suffering that I've experienced, and it has been more than any man should have to endure, yet I've gotten past it and grown from it, I thought into a strong and sufficient man, but now I'm not so sure. I don't really know where I am going with this except to say that I am finally reaching that dark night of the soul. I am beginning to question those things I've held to be true, to wonder if there is any real purpose or greater meaning to it all and if there is, then why can't I see it as clearly now as I did a month ago? If my faith is shaken by so little, what faith did I really have in the first place? Anyways, sorry for the prattling, but this is a very serious question. If anyone has a real answer, not some metaphysical bullshit, I'd be happy to hear it. Aaron edit- I understand fully that this may seem an off-topic post, if so please feel free to move it.

Hello Ya Mu, I must apologize for my previous behavior in this thread, I have been going through a rough patch and as a result I have been less tolerant and patient than I need to be. I have no doubt that gardening is a valuable practice and I would encourage everyone that can to do it, my point was really that maybe that isn't enough. If we truly want to evoke change, then we need to look at the bigger picture, what has caused us to become such a harmful race. I think much of this has to do with Te, or the absence of Te to be more exact. When I say Te I'm not talking about virtue, but rather the natural action that occurs when we are in harmony with Tao. I think we achieve this through wu-wei, or action without interference. It is when we allow things to occur naturally that we can allow Te to come forth and thus begin to work in harmony with the world. Imagine for a moment if suddenly all the advances we have, televisions, computers, microwaves, and electric razors were suddenly gone. Some people hear this and they have an immediate sense of dread and fear in the pit of their stomach. We have become so attached to things that ease our way of life, that we have become ignorant, or even worse, ignore the effect these things actually have on the world. When did we begin to value ease of life over the quality of nature? I think, again, it was when we decided to settle down and have a more reliable source of food of goods. I don't think we can ever get back to that time before we decided to settle down and as a result, unless we can come up with a way to stop the impact we have on the world today, we will never actually be able to. The fact of the matter is that we all know in our hearts that the world cannot go on as it has, that in a matter of decades we will have mass famine and that the effects of global warming will begin to have a catastrophic effect on the world. I don't think we are entirely to blame for this, we being the modern Western culture, but we do share the blame. The blame of course started 12,000 years ago when we began to do what we thought was best, when we decided to make the world a better place for our children, not realizing the full extent of what those actions would lead to. 200,000 years ago mankind was very much in harmony with Tao (I believe). I think 15,000 years ago most of humanity still was, it was only when we started to deviate that we started this cycle. I think the key is to look at what we were before and what we have become and to stop valuing one more than the other because of the superficial benefits that we have gotten from this evolution. If we really wanted change, we would put a ban on pregnancy, not allow everyone to have children, begin to compassionately reduce our population, and put our emphasis on the betterment of nature, rather than the propagation of our species. As long as we continue to live the Western dream of 3 kids, a house, a car, and middle class job, nothing much will change. Rather change will occur when we stop the harmful things we do and actually commit to a real and lasting change. My advice to those who are interested in making a change, don't have children just because you want them. If you want children badly, go adopt one, there are literally millions that need families and homes. Don't attach yourself to the Western dogma, begin to live a more natural lifestyle. Make your own food out of actual ingredients rather than buy processed foods where the factories that make them help to further the process of global warming and the pollution of the environment. Make sure that when it comes time for your voice to be heard, that it is heard, that the people in power understand that we want change and that we are willing to sacrifice in order to ensure that not only our species, but our culture can continue. Otherwise I think it will be just a matter of time before we loose everything we have gained. I honestly hope it's not too late, but lately it's hard to believe otherwise. Aaron

Hello Ya Mu, It doesn't matter which is more natural, they are both unnatural processes. Humanity is not a part of nature, rather we have ostracized ourselves from it. It is very hard for us to act in harmony with Tao because of this. We can fool ourselves into believing we are in harmony with the Tao, by easing our conscience, but that doesn't mean that gardens or farming are what we are supposed to be doing. Humanity left nature when we stopped doing our part in the natural world, when we got lazy and decided to quit moving and instead depend on farms and domesticated animals to survive. Yes we eventually found out about nuclear power, but look where that has got us and nature. From what I understand the accident in Japan is going to have more of an impact on the environment than the Chernobyl incident. If we had never stopped and settled down, then none of this would've happened. We would still be cheerfully wandering the world in nomadic groups, hunting and moving on, collecting vegetables when we could. No we would not live eighty plus years, but in the same way, we would not be killing off hundreds of other species every year either. Just a little insight. I'm sure you don't agree, but again, you don't have to. So my answer is that I don't think it matters which is more natural, what matters is how we can diminish the impact we have on the environment, and I'm afraid the only way that's going to happen is if there's a large scale depopulation of the world. I think it will happen sooner or later, either by man's hand or natures. We can't keep going like we are and not expect something like that. Aaron

Hello Stig, I am alluding to the fact that mankind was meant to be a migratory creature and the fact that we ceased to be migratory has led to our eventual downfall and most likely extinction. There are certain animals that do certain things, i.e. build dams, but the real difference is that they are, in most cases, benefiting nature. Humanity very rarely does anything that benefits nature. That is why I believe man is no longer a part of nature and that the things we do, that seem natural are merely illusions. Using animals as examples is clever, but you still haven't managed to defend the effect humanity has had on the environment. I don't see Beavers causing global warming, do you? So when I say what we've done is unnatural, I think we can see the actual proof in the pudding. Now if what we were doing was "in the Tao", don't you think it would benefit nature, or perhaps the Tao is intending to destroy mankind because we are not of the Tao? Well now, that's an interesting question. Aaron edit- Let me clarify, though I don't think it will make much difference, that I don't feel that people should not garden, nor am I opposed to people transporting food, especially for the hungry, my point is that in the 200,000+ years human beings have been on the Earth, it has only been in the last 12,000 or so years that we have seen humanity have a drastic impact on nature. This effect occurred after we changed the way we interacted with nature. When we made settlements and began to use agriculture and domesticated animals to help provide nourishment, we began to see a drastic effect on the environment. That's why I say these things aren't natural for human beings. In the same way, we can't give up on them, but it's also wise to understand that in the end they will probably lead to our downfall as a civilization. Hopefully a small group of mankind will survive and perhaps live wiser than we have.