Aaron

Hello Folks, It's good to see you back Strawdog. You've been gone far too long. I hope you stick around, we can use some of your pragmatism. I also want to thank everyone who offered their own advice and support. I honestly don't know where I am going to go from here, but I will try and that's, I guess, all I can really do. I had this nightmare last night that me and my (twin) brother got separated and I couldn't find him... that's what's really haunting me, not so much losing my home, but losing my family and loved ones. I know what happens to people on the streets, you have a very limited window of time to get out, once that window closes it becomes very hard to leave that lifestyle. I guess I really never saw it coming down to this. I've applied for some writing jobs, so who knows. Even if I do end up homeless, I will have my laptop, so I can work on the streets without worrying about that sort of thing. I am going to check into changing my address for most of my financial information and also find a good campground to stay at. My brother is checking into quality tents, so hopefully by the time the eviction comes we will be set up. I thought I had gotten very centered, but now I feel very off kilter, like I'm wobbly. I am going to try and find a degree of peace again, because I know panic and despair will not help. I guess the only thing I can do is take it one day at a time, so I guess that's what I will do. Aaron

Hello Catofthewoods, I want to thank you for your post. I am a recovering alcoholic, so I understand what you're talking about in regards to abuse. I hope that you find peace in your recovery. I think the closer we are to suffering, the harder it gets to see a way out of it, sometimes it isn't until we nearly lose everything that we can find the strength to make a change. I am trying to get things in order, especially for my cats. I love them very much. Anyways, I really just wanted to say thank you and tell you that I can see the honesty in your post and it really does mean a lot. Aaron

Ya Mu, You need to pay attention. Just because I don't agree with someone else's definition, that doesn't mean I've defined anything. Second I never said trucking in food was more natural than growing it, but if you collected the food in the forest and then trucked it to where the people were, it probably would be. I'm not even saying that people shouldn't garden, but rather how ludicrous it is to view gardening as being a part of nature. I'm sure that somewhere someone is planting a radish and thinking they have returned to nature. Well good for them and more power to them. I just tend to see it as controlling nature, rather than living in harmony with it. After all, you're deciding where to grow, what to grow, and when to grow? How is any of that natural? Again, since you have a problem understanding what I am saying, I will make this as clear as possible, first, there's nothing morally wrong with gardening, even if it is an unnatural process. Second I do not try to define the Tao anymore, but if you wish to, more power to you. Third, anything that we do to try to simulate something in the natural world is essentially a simulation, not something that is natural. If it makes you feel good to simulate that, then again, more power to you. Aaron

You have me at a loss. Where did I derive a definition of Tao? Anyways, it's not important, believe whatever makes you happy. Also, it's not natural for man to plant vegetables, rather it's natural for nature to spread it's own seeds, ala the wind and such. You seem to be confusing technology that we've learned as something that is a part of the natural process. No it's not natural to truck vegetables in, nor is it natural to plant vegetables. Look at the environmental impact a small garden can have on a local ecosystem. First you tear up what is a natural environment, then, rather than plant food that is natural to that environment, in most cases you plant something completely foreign. Even if you do end up planting something that's part of the local ecosystem, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not causing an imbalance. After all, in nature most often the food grown helps everything that is in the ecosystem, in the garden it feeds, well, just you. Again, you're confusing a practice that has been a part of our society on a global scale, for something that is actually natural, when in fact it's not. I could explain it further, but I think that is detailed enough. Aaron edit- I want to add that if you want to plant a garden, that's fine. We don't live in harmony with nature anymore and attempting to get back to that point is impossible for most of us, so the only thing we can do now is try our best to minimize the impact we have on nature. In the end, unless there is a global catastrophe that annihilates most of the human population, the Earth will, within the next century or so, cease to be able to grow much of anything, then the notion of gardens will be completely moot. Also keep in mind one of the major environmental hazards in most of the rain forests isn't commercial farms, but rather communal farms intended to feed communities. If growing food in gardens is natural, then why does it seem to be causing such disharmony? If you want to learn more, just do some research on some of the endangered species around the world.

Hello Steve, I think it was a comment you made about the sun that caused me to lean in this direction. I normally don't follow the whole, "higher intelligence" thing either, but the idea of evolution popped in my mind because of another thread and I started to wonder, what if there was more to it. Aaron

Hello Ya Mu, I never said it was natural to starve, but in fact it is. Just as surviving is natural, so is dieing. Just because we use a process to survive doesn't mean it's natural or part of Tao, regardless of how many people might say it is. Yes managing a garden is pleasant and really does give you an idea of how nature works, but in order to really know nature you have to get out in nature. At one time man wandered from place to place, hunting and gathering. As time went by they learned to survive by harnessing nature, in other words, domesticating live stock and planting crops. Those people who planted the best crops (crops high in protein and nutrients) and had the best live stock (matured quickly and provided other resources as well) ended up advancing culturally, because these crops and livestock allowed them the free time to think and work on other things besides just survival, those that didn't, remained very much as they did back when they first started (the tribes of New Guinea are evidence of this by the way.) Now that doesn't mean that any of these things that came along were natural or part of Tao, just that they were done to make life easier. So with that in mind, gardening isn't natural, nor is living in one place (we are migratory by nature, or at the very least, historically speaking), but that doesn't mean we can't live that way or have a garden. My point is that we oftentimes confuse what seems natural, with what is actually natural. Anyways, I hope that explains it more. Aaron

If I am made in the Image of God, I have serious worries about the nature of the universe. I tend to think that the whole notion of God comes from our own fears of not knowing. I think once we cease worrying about not knowing, then we no longer need God. We can look at the world as it is and see the purpose within it. Then perhaps we will really begin to see God. Aaron

Hello Mewtwo, My nick comes from my college years. My friends in my late teens took to calling me Twinner because I'm a twin. I used the nick back in the early days of IRC and kept it. Aaron

Hello Folks, I agree with you Chidragon in regards to your interpretation of Wu Wei. I think I'm talking about something different though. My question stems from the idea that many people have that intentions matter more when one takes an action, than the result of the action. For me I can understand how one can feel that way, certainly, but in the grand scheme, as others have pointed out, there may be more to this than meets the eye. The thing that comes to mind is evolution. For all intents (pun intended) and purposes, we could conceive of evolution as an intended process, one that happens with a definite agenda in mind. This notion that it occurs as a random process seems the most logical, but what if that isn't so, what if, as Steve F. pointed at (perhaps as a devils advocate) there is a greater consciousness that is acting. If we take this into account, and if it is true, then how does that effect our own decisions and intentions? If evolution is the natural process and our original nature is to work within that natural process, than why do we act contrary to it? Why do we so often do things that not only harm nature, but ourselves as well? Is it in fact this idea that intentions are more important than the actions that causes us to deviate? Perhaps the fact of the matter is that there is an actual calculable effect that this notion has on us and the world as a whole, an effect that happens on a global scale? What if our failure to understand our place in this scheme, to realize that intentions matter little, but instead the action is most important, is resulting in a global catastrophe that may end up being the end of us as a people? Just some thoughts. After all, it seems if there is an actual intended way for things to occur, that going against that would result in some severe consequences. If this is true then I definitely believe actions are more important than intentions. Aaron

Hello Cowtao, That's fine if you're tired, hopefully you'll get the idea at some point that not everyone needs to agree with you, nor does every thread need to return to the topic of dualism and non-dualism. The purpose of this thread isn't that at all, but to examine the idea of which is more important, action or intent, not whether or not actions are real. Do I really need to point out all the threads where self/no-self, real/no-real have been pushed forward with relatively little to no tolerance for those who view things differently or the original topic of those posts? If so I can go through and cite examples. If you presenting this little bit of esoteric wisdom sent up flags, perhaps there was a well founded reason. Aaron

Hello Stig, I was disagreeing with you because I thought you had interpreted the meaning of Tao wrong. I still do. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to believe whatever way you do. And of course you can interpret the Tao anyway you want, many people do. I don't intend to be an ass, I just see a lot of what you say as being a bit idealistic and hence my desire to bring a more pragmatic approach to the conversation. You can slap me with a trout all you want, but that doesn't mean that I believe harvesting food or growing gardens is part of Tao or even natural, rather it's man's attempt to harness nature, something completely different. Just because someone calls it Tao doesn't make it so. When I talk about the the true sage, I take it for granted most people understand that there's really no such thing as a sage, but rather that it's an ideal presented by the Tao Teh Ching. Now if you want to identify me as a true sage, that's fine, but I think you may be disappointed. I'm afraid when I stand on top of someone, my full weight is felt. Sigh. I think the important thing to keep in mind is that the true issue is that we have different views of how things are not only interpreted, but also what people should do in regards to Taoism. You might not realize this, but that's a good thing. You can value your opinion more by seeing how it relates to my opinion. Aaron

I wanted to clarify that when I was talking about intent, it was more along the lines of what Steve was talking about, not just the thought that leads to action, but rather the intention of the action. So I'm not asking whether or not it is better to act or think about acting, but rather if the intention of an action is more important than the actual outcome. Aaron

Why do we have to start the real/not-real, self/not-self argument? Aren't there enough threads to talk about that already, do we really need to sidetrack another for whatever reason? Aaron

Suninmyeyes is spot on in my opinion. One of the first things many find when they begin to meditate is that they pay attention to the painful bits more than they do the non-painful. As he stated, when you start to wash, expect to find some dirt. The important thing is to be able to get rid of the water, so that when you wash again, you aren't simply causing everything you've just cleaned to become dirty again. Perhaps the best thing for your friend to do is to try to address what's causing him to become angry and irritable. Once he can identify this, I think he will begin to move past it. Aaron

Hello Stig, I'm not advocating anything actually, just making a point. The true sage doesn't exist, rather it was a archetype created within Chinese society to emulate the perfect man, the savior archetype you could say. The fact that many people are attributed to this archetype isn't mysterious at all, just look at the apostles and saints in modern Christianity. Second if we're talking about the true sage in the archetypal sense, which is what I've been doing, then he would not necessarily be a wilderness survival guy, he may very well live in the city and live off the generosity of others. My point is that the true sage would probably identify the folly of gardening or harvesting being seen as natural or part of the Tao. (After all the True Sage is all wise and knowing, hence he can see the connection between things on an intimate level.) Another point I've been trying to make is that the Tao that is talked about within the Tao Te Ching is not simply one Tao, but rather the Tao that can be talked about and the Tao that can't. In that sense the Tao can be nameless, but the Tao can be described. I think before you begin a conversation about the Tao you make it clear which Tao you are talking about. At times you seem to allude to the former, where as other times the latter. Marblehead, In response to your question for Stig, I believe the Tao is nourishing. Te comes from the nourishing nature of Tao. It is the fruit of Tao per se. Peace be with you, Aaron

For the last few days I have been seeing this rogue hair out of the corner of my eye. I thought it might be an eyebrow, so I started to pluck one now and again, thinking I'd gotten the rogue hair, but alas, I couldn't track it down. Finally I decided to trim them with some scissors. I thought I was being careful, but just as I was about to cut, my hand twitched and I chopped off half my eyebrow. Yes... laugh. Anyways, it gets worse. With half an eyebrow missing the normal symmetry of my face was missing, so I decided to get my electric razor out and start to trim them so they looked normal, but I didn't use a guard and ended up shaving off the eyebrow. Now I was staring at myself with just one eyebrow wondering what to do? Well the answer seemed to be to make the other eyebrow look the same, so I shaved it off. Sigh... yes... no eyebrows. So there I was with no eyebrows and a full (well except for the bald spot) head of hair. I decided it wouldn't look so bad if I shaved my hair as well, so off came the hair. So here I sit completely bald with no eyebrows. That's not the worst of it though. The rogue hair was still there, hanging down out of the corner of my eye. Alas, it was an eyelash. I plucked the eyelash and now I can see fine. So what does this all mean? Well I think it simply means, that when there is something bothering me, that I need to be sure exactly what it is, before I set about fixing it. If I had took the time to identify it, rather than just assume what the problem was, I would not be sitting here without eyebrows, bald, looking quite like an overgrown infant (a sad infant at that). In the same way, when I see something in someone else that's bothering me, I need to be sure that I don't assume I know how to correct this "problem" and recommend they trim their eyebrow, when all I need to do is point out they had a rogue eyelash. Perhaps the best thing to do is just ignore it all together, or get a hand mirror so I can see the problem more clearly. Aaron edited to correct a grammatical error.

Hello Manitou, Ahh... the template. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have some of that template here? The notion that you can have whatever higher power you want and no one should try to convince you otherwise? The idea that through self inquiry we can understand the true nature of our actions? That in the end it is the action that is most important. We can talk about doing what is right until we're blue in the face, but until the rubber hits the road, we wont get very far. Even more important to me is the idea that so long as I turn my will over to my higher power, then I will be guided on the right path, it is only when I start to take control again that it seems like life becomes a mess. I haven't had work in over three weeks and I am not absolutely sure if I will be able to pay my rent next month. (It looks highly unlikely). When I look at the actions I've taken, I understand that I should've gotten off my butt and found another job, rather than wait for more work to come. A firm life lesson. No worries though, I have a laptop, so if I do end up on the street, I'm sure I can still use wifi to get on the net and visit Taobums. It really is eye opening. I've started to take it one day at a time again. To do otherwise is just way too overwhelming. Aaron

Hello Mewtwo, You had noble intentions and I can see that. I'm sure others do as well. The problem is that, even if you can see that all roads lead to Rome, it doesn't necessarily mean others will. I like to look at this metaphor in a spiritual context like this, regardless of what practice you choose, if you are intent on reaching Rome, then you will. The problem is Rome is many things to many people and not all people can agree. My argument is that if someone is telling you the truth with unwavering loyalty to that truth, then there is no way of convincing them otherwise, in fact they will most likely feel very threatened by what they view as an attack on truth and oppose you by all means necessary. No one needs to argue with someone else. For me it's very easy to understand what you're pointing out. For those that can't, just let them go and be happy that at least you have the compassion and insight to understand it. Aaron edit- I was in Job Corps too. Quite a different world. When I got there I was the only one in my dorm that wasn't court mandated (no lie.) I lived with hardcore gang bangers and criminals for over a year and it really wisened me up to how the world works. First thing I learned is that you get respect by earning it, it's not a given right. The second thing I learned was how to live on a forty dollar stipend every month.

Hello Manitou, I don't want to mislead you, so to be completely honest, I stopped visiting Bill's friends over a year ago. I still appreciate them, but after years of knowing them, I've learned that they could only take me so far, at some point I had to go beyond them to see what was on the other side. I'm still very clean and clear of conscience, so no worries. I have no desire to return to my old ways. Aaron

Hello Stig, First the people you mentioned, in my opinion, probably weren't true sages. Second, I'm not a Taoist, I'm merely explaining how I view the Tao. Third, I believe that everything is simply "It", so I would show compassion to a child in pain, just as I would an old man on his death bed. My point is that you apparently know much more about the Tao than I do, but then again, perhaps your Tao isn't mine. Aaron edit- Also, it never says that it's easier to describe the Tao by what it isn't, I just thought certain passages alluded to it, in particular the fact that the Tao is nameless, so simply by naming it, defining it, you've proved it isn't the Tao, but rather a tao. That's how I see it these days. Again, not a Taoist, just my understanding of it all.

Well my first recommendation for anyone that is having twins is not to name them similar names. Nothing is more annoying than being referred to as "Aaron and Eric". It's like we are a set, rather than individuals. Aaron

Hello Folks, A few points. First pirates had morals. If you think you just killed someone because they looked at you the wrong way and nothing happened, you have another thing coming (which was pointed out, but perhaps not examined as closely as it should've been). The problem with society is that in order to have a society there must be rules in order to ensure that those people within that society can prosper (the actual purpose of there being a society in the first place). Now you might say morals aren't rules at all, but I think you'd be wrong. First morals are dictated by those around us. My friend was raised as a vegetarian and believes that killing animals for any reason is wrong. I remember he ran over a cat and I could see the sincere distress that it caused him. I met someone the other day who admitted that his dog killed any cat that came into his yard. It appalled me, but for him there was no moral qualms about it at all, because he saw nothing wrong in it. Morals are subjective. Do they physically exist? Not in the sense that we can experience them with our senses, but they do exist so far as the society and we are concerned. They have a purpose and to say that it isn't a necessary purpose seems a bit presumptuous. I know that for several months I debated the need for morals, my argument being that man, if he/she follows their true nature, would behave in a way that is beneficial for each other without the need for moral guidelines. Lately I've had my doubts in this regard. Do I still believe man is naturally compassionate? Yes, but only towards those people they are invested in being compassionate towards. I don't think man is meant to be compassionate towards everyone, no more than I believe that man is meant to love everyone without having some reason to love them. The fact of the matter is we are skinwalkers, as Manitou likes to call it, and in being skinwalkers, we worry about the skin that is most valuable to us, our own. Now can an enlightened being transcend the need for morality? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean he discounts or disregards morality or the laws of the land, rather he understand the nature of it all and has a little laugh over how seriously everyone seems to take it. In the end we are better off understanding our connection to each other, and through this connection, knowing how our actions against others effects us. When we know this morality becomes obsolete, but until we learn it, it is very much a needed tool. So to answer your question, yes morals are better than no morals. Aaron

I'll get back to you on this. Aaron

People who don't even know I have a twin call me Eric a lot. Then again, people call me Eric a lot because I do have a twin too. Aaron