Aaron

Hello Shawn, It may be true, but it's not something I've ever heard before. Again I think it has to do with the scarring preventing the hair from growing back, rather than the fact a child's eyebrows may not grow back. With that said, I will make a note not to shave any children's eyebrows off. Aaron

Hello Taomeow, My birth certificate says I'm the first twin, but my mother says I was the second, so apparently I'm not Aaron at all, but really Eric, so far as the filed certificates go. My cats are happy and spoiled. I am reluctant to talk to them about the Ancient Egyptians and their love for cats, because they already have tremendous egos. Aaron

I think that the true sage does not interfere with other's actions, so he does not give a man a fish, he teaches them to fish. He does not plant the vegetables in a garden, rather he finds them in the wild and harvests what he needs. The true Sage does not endeavor to just nourish, because that alone is not the process, but also the process involves deprivation as well. The true sage endeavors to allow what is natural to happen, to act without acting, to do without doing. He is invested in life, by understanding the nature of death. If he knows a child will die from a sickness, he will not attempt to prolong his life anymore than he will a deer being stalked by a tiger. The Tao is the process, but a Taoist does not cultivate that process, rather he works within that process. Not everything is of Tao, but not all cultivation is Taoist either. Aaron

Actually that's not true. All hair will grow back, unless a scar grows over it. That's why the doctor didn't want to shave the eyebrow, because he was a afraid the scarring would prevent it from growing back in that area. Aaron

Hello folks, Thanks for all the feedback regarding the return of my eyebrows. Taomeow, I didn't tell my cats about the whole, shaving eyebrows when they die. I didn't want to make them paranoid. The Rumi story was very disturbing, that's all I can say about that. As for the true meaning, well I think it's what we decide to make it. Yes it is a new beginning. I went out earlier today and I really didn't get any looks, but the owner of the local convenience store, whom I've known for around nine years remarked, "huh (brief silence) so you cut your hair. Did you do it because of the heat?" I kindly replied no, that it was accidental, which I think confused her even more. Anyways, life without eyebrows is pretty much the same as life with eyebrows, except the stubble irritates my arm when I'm trying to get to sleep. With that, I hope you guys and gals have a good night or great morning, depending on when I catch you. Aaron edit- And yes I am a twin Manitou... I can't think of anything I really want that he has, except for maybe his laptop.

I like the phrase, "this too shall pass." When you are experiencing something that is painful or agrivating, just keep in mind that nothing lasts forever. Remember that without the storms, the grass would not grow. Aaron

Well then it didn't happen. I'm sorry, but I don't post pictures of myself on the internet. Call me paranoid. Aaron

Hello Erj, "Is awakening a call to service?" If you look within your own heart, I think you'll find that the answer lies there. What I might say is that I think you desire more than what's on your list, you just need some encouragement to go further. In the meantime love and provide for your family, and do the best you can. As long as you're doing this, then you are making the world a better place for those that love and depend on you, anything else is sheer gravy. Aaron

Very good explanation. I remember being told that we are God and this is God's dream. Once we wake up then will recognize it for what it is, our fanciful imagination, and return to being God. Aaron

I was reading this thread and thinking of how I was going to reply to everything that's been said when this song came up on my brother's i-pod. He has around 1200 songs and I had it on random, so the notion that this song, which I had heard before, but never really placed the meaning, would be chosen as I was reading this post, seemed kind of more than coincidence. I wanted to share it with you so I'm adding the link to it below... It really applies, I believe to what everyone has said so far. If nothing else, there's a pretty girl singing... so give it a go. With that said, it might be best to close your eyes so you're not distracted from the lyrics. Aaron

Hello Seth, So my final question, are you saying the mind has nothing to do with no-self? I guess my inherent problem with the idea is that science seems to disprove the notion. Scientists quantify thought as an energy and that energy is created within the brain. If the brain does not work, then any concept, self or no-self, doesn't exist. Now if you're saying there is no concrete concept of self, that our idea of being a self is hard to define because we cannot pinpoint it's origins and endings, then I can understand what you're saying. I'm still not sold on the no-self idea or how that leads one to greater compassion, in fact it seems like it would lead one to indifference. Aaron

Hello Xabir, Read my response to Seth, I think I cover my opinion in regards to this there. Aaron

Hello Seth, I hope you don't mind, but I've been following this discussion and I wanted to throw some things out there. First, I agree with you to a point, it is only by understanding that we are not "I" that we can truly become a part of the flow of life and stop getting in the way of it, but I think that one doesn't necessarily need to come to the realization that there is no-self to achieve this. Second, I think many people have a misunderstanding about the nature of thought, that somehow, because it is not physical, and we cannot touch it or smell it or see it, that it is intangible and not real. The fact is thoughts are very tangible and very real, they are in fact the product of electrical currents in the brain. This electrical current is manifested within our body and it is very much a part of the body, hence the reason I say that the mind and body are not separate, but rather a single thing. If we understand that thoughts are our bodies way of interacting with the world, then it also seems to make sense that we need to find a way to interact with the world that allows us to communicate needs to others, after all we are a social creature. The fact that all societies develop language seems to be a strong argument for the notion that language and the use of language to identify things, such as us and others, is something that is natural and normal. In fact animals do the very same thing, a mother can often identify her baby by its cry, not just it's smell and appearance. This is necessary for the mother to understand who they are supposed to care for. If we want to take it one step further, if thoughts are actually physical and can be quantified as impulses, which they can and are, then the notion that somehow because we choose to use this physical manifestation as a method of understanding that self is somehow intangible, and merely a product of thought, seems incorrect, in the sense that it is very much us, our bodies (i.e. the brain) that make these assumptions. If one was to understand that they are no-self, or rather that the concept of self is an illusion, then one must also view the construct which causes this no-self to become understood as an illusion as well, but the fact is without that construct, the brain, there would be no way of understanding no-self. If the cessation of thought is actually the realization of no-self, then what we are saying is that only with the absence of brain function can we truly achieve a realization of no-self, but this cannot actually be achieved, because the only way for someone to achieve an absence of thought is to actually be brain dead, and when someone is brain dead, there brain doesn't function, and hence there is no identification of self. I think a clearer explanation is, that only with the quieting of the mind can we begin to understand where we begin and where we end. That we are very much how we imagine ourselves to be, but also that our imagination is not the entirety of our being, and that when we cease to think of what we are, and instead just live, experience life as it's meant to be, then we can begin to understand that many of the constructs we develop are not only not needed, but extraneous. In essence it is the notion that one is not simply "I", but rather "It", the entirety of the universe, that allows them to become aware of the flow of life, the nature by which all things interact and are related. Now if one wants to deconstruct the body and say it is just the sum of its parts, then one must also understand that without the sum of its parts, it cannot work. All the parts are necessary. If one takes any of the parts away, then what one is left with, is not a body per se, but a corpse. In that sense then, the corpse would be no-self, but the body would be self. Merely being able to assert the idea of no-self, requires a self, so without one, there cannot be the other, hence no-self, or this illusion of self cannot exist without the illusion being there in the first place. Anyways, just some thoughts. I understand what you're saying, I just wanted to throw that out there. Aaron edit- I know I threw some things in there that had nothing to do with what you were saying, but they were meant as a means to discuss some other prominent notions of no-self.

Well that makes much more sense too me. Aaron

Hello Simple, Don't listen to Cowtao, it does, but we love you anyway. Aaron

About the Ruthless Truth website and forum. I would say that if you ask any expert on cults if the Ruthless Truth group meets that criteria, they would probably have no problem identifying it as such. I read through one thread, heard Kevin order everyone to stop talking to someone because they refused to agree, and that was enough for me to say, "woah Doggie. We gots us a live one here." Anyways, I would recommend anyone that goes over there, does so with care and caution. When people give you ultimatums regarding spirituality or philosophy, then it's time to worry, especially when they threaten you with ostracization if you disagree. The one thing I'm certain of, is that I've never heard of a well respected monastery or teacher working along these premises. To me it sounds like Buddhist terrorism. The other freaky thing, why do they all tend to use the same freaking avatar? What the hell is up with the nuclear explosion? I think the scariest response was in regard to someone starting "The Meaning of Life" thread and one of the sysops started tearing into them asking, "what the f--- is this," regarding the people's comments in that thread. The fact they separate people into classes like "Liberated", "Free", and "Un-free", is very Orwellian. Anyways, I can gaurantee that's one forum I'll never venture into again. If someone really has an interest in Buddhism and wants to learn from authorities, go to Zen Forum International. I really wish I hadn't visited Ruthless Truth now. It was really disturbing. You do realize they are trying exceptionally hard to appear cool, yet authoritarian and crass so that they can pull in those young people that have experienced trauma and dysfunction in their childhoods into the fold. It really doesn't take a genius to look at the layout, schemes, and themes used on the site to figure that out. Aaron

Hello folks, I'm a firm believer that the reason people come to the conclusion that there is no-self, is because it's infinitely more satisfactory to them than claiming, "this is all there is." When you are left with the fact that there is no cessation of suffering, no heaven, no nirvana, no way to escape the inevitable, that is a very scary proposition and it warrants an attempt to find a better answer. I think all religions, including Buddhism, are based on this fact, after all what is Buddhism, but preparation for the next life, or an escape from the suffering of life. Remember that in the times of Buddha people very much believed in Hell and a myriad other punishments for wrong doing in this life, reincarnation wasn't the sole possibility, so they had every bit as much inspiration to answer this question as the Christians did for Judaism. In the end Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism, an offshoot that attempted to provide a better answer than the answer before them. We can take all of this religious ideology as fact, or we can examine it for what it is, an idea of how the world was created and works. We don't necessarily need to believe everything involved in religions, I know I don't believe there are just 10,000 things, but in the same way, when we are certain that our truth is the only truth and that any deviation is wrong, then you are just biding your time for a religious war. I am certain that I exist, just as the molecules that make me up exist. Trying to answer how we came to exist seems very hard, in fact it's in our nature to believe that everything came from nothing, but then again, maybe there has always been something and the greatest illusion is this notion of nothing being the chicken, or is that the egg? Aaron

Well in my defense, despite what many Buddhists here believe I did "try it" and decided it wasn't for me. I have read a great deal on Zen, many books were given to me by my friend when I became interested in it. I also have a great deal of respect for Zen. In some ways you could call me a Zenist, but not a Buddhist. I truly appreciate the concepts inherent in Zen, but I don't necessarily agree with the four noble truths or the eightfold path. I actually asked about practicing Zen without Buddhism and the general consensus seemed to be that it couldn't be done, so I decided I'd just practice Zazen, since it helps me to find a place of balance and peace. Anyways, I'm not trying to show any disrespect. I guess I was surprised by your response, because overall you seem to be a very conscientious and compassionate person, so those comments struck me as odd. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Blasto, I never argued that self wasn't socially constructed, I've read Joseph Cambell's Mythos, I understand the effect that culture plays on the ego and unconscious. My argument is that it's a necessary construct, that it's a natural part of our nature to develop these constructs. (Also, even with this said, I think we can both agree that at least a small part of our personality is dictated by our DNA.) From my understanding acting in concert with the Tao does not require ego-less-ness, but rather that one act in concert with the Tao. Wu Wei may manifest from this, but so does Te, or high virtue. My argument has always been that one does not need to be free from Ego, but rather return to their original nature in order to be able to manifest Te. Wu Wei, action without action, doesn't necessarily require a return to one's original nature, but rather an understanding of one's place within their environment. Once they understand this, then they can begin to act in concert with that environment and allow Wu Wei to manifest as it is supposed to. As far as empirical evidence regarding enlightenment, it can't be proven, hence one should always take accounts with a grain of salt. If someone comes up to me and claims to be the messiah, I'm not going to believe them unless they can prove to me they are. Hence enlightenment in my opinion, is a classification of a state of knowledge and understanding, and not a quantifiable mystical or metaphysical experience. You are right though, it doesn't really matter so much. My point is not that enlightenment can't be proven or disproven, but rather that no one should dictate what is required to achieve it or quantify it in the first place. In the end you have asked the most important question and I believe the one that should settle this argument once and for all, "how does one quantify enlightenment?" They can't, so in the end why is it so important to prove it? A lot of this has to do with faith. Aaron

Hello Seth, My question is this, if I have practiced Zazen (I practiced as a taoist for years) and did not come to the same conclusion as the Buddhists, does that mean I am a coward for not looking further in that direction? Again this is like saying, "What if there is a hell? Do you really want to take the chance?" If you tell me that I can dig a hole to China, and I don't believe it's possible, does that mean I am stubborn because I didn't dig that hole because I believed it to be impossible? Does someone really need to dedicate themselves to digging that hole before they can be taken seriously? With that said, I'm not defending TZL's behavior, but I am defending his right to choose what he wishes to practice. Aaron

Hello Simple Jack, I think the problem is that you are debating a theory that can't be proven scientifically, hence the reason so many people have problems accepting it as fact. In my mind the whole thing is similar to the old adage, "what if there is a hell, do you really want to take that chance?" So I should practice buddhism to be rid of suffering, even though I don't see that as happening. Are you saying that enlightened individuals can choose whether they feel pain, get hungry, or suffer from neurosis or deviant behavior? If so can you show me some documented evidence? That's the problem here, there is nothing you can show me that proves what you're saying is true, rather it's here say and speculation. Aaron edit- You are still free to believe whatever you want, but I would recommend you not insult others or make crude comments in an to attempt to misdirect the conversation away from your relatively flimsy explanations.

Hello Blasto, I'm not offended by your post. I still don't think that there is any such thing as no-self, but that's only because I find no scientific or logical evidence to prove that it exists. I understand the philosophy that is behind it, but I still find it lacking in proof as well. I understand that many people have claimed enlightenment, but I've yet to see anything that proves they are such, either in action or metaphysical phenomena. In the same way I understand what people are talking about in reference to Samadhi and the deconstruction of self, but I have yet to see anything that's been proven. I've been told that I need to practice it in order to experience it, but I liken that to the same thing the preacher told me when I was leaving the church, "If you're wrong you're going to hell. Do you really want to take that chance?" My answer was, "I don't believe in hell, so that's not a good enough reason." Aaron

If one looks at Buddhism historically, one can find numerous incidents where Buddhists attacked others in the name of faith, perhaps the most famous case in that of Nonin ( from the 13th century AD) who held a very different view of Zen than his predecessors and contemporaries. His nephew killed him and afterwards militant Buddhist monks set about destroying Nonin's followers temples (i.e. slaughtering or forcing them to disband). I think it would be unfair to view Buddhists in a poor light because of this, they aren't the only ones to commit violence in the name of faith, rather it just proves that they are quite as human as the rest of us. In the long run it can only be expected that when one has the truth, then they must enforce the truth to ensure it doesn't become diluted. Aaron edit- Janwillem van de Wetering makes mention that when puppies were born in the temple he was practicing at in Japan, that the monks would drown them when they got too noisy in order to prevent the monks from being distracted during meditation. I'm sure the monks viewed that as nonviolence too. In essence I think anything can be defined as nonviolent if it allows for peace in the end.

I agree, that's an excellent way to run a forum. I have no desire to investigate No Self in that context, so I don't see the need to go there or distract them from what they want to do. I actually joined a zen forum for awhile, but left when I realized that it wasn't for me. To each his own. I also count the ability to speak harshly sometimes as a virtue, unfortunately many people are incapable of handling this in a manner that doesn't cause more harm than good. A good example of being able to do this can be seen in a loving parent who can be harsh, but still makes sure that the child knows they are loved. Aaron

Hello Blasto, Fist, I enjoyed this article. I have also decided that it is hypocritical of me to advocate love, compassion, and tolerance, and yet not be willing to listen to what you have to say, when clearly you have a great deal to say that is relevant and meaningful. I wanted to address some things that came to mind while I was reading this article that I think might be interesting to pursue in relations to the self, especially since I think this is where the self discussion is going to continue. My first thought is about the origination of self. I understand that Buddhists and Taoists tend to believe that we originated from nothing and that we never fully understand that nothingness, emptiness, void, or whatever you choose to call it. My question stems from biology though, the origination of ourselves as infants within the womb. From my limited knowledge of biology, my assumption is that we begin with the meeting of sperm and egg, and that from this we are born inside the mother. No one can remember back to this moment, at least as far as I know, so what I can take from this is that we are not truly the self we know now when we are first created, but rather that self comes later and essentially grows within the womb. Even after we are born we do not remember these first few years and this this is perplexing to me, since anyone that watches an infant clearly sees them as a person, their personality and essentially who they are is evident from the moment they leave the womb and join the rest of the world. The second point I want to make is that every infant requires a few things to grow up into a relatively healthy adult early in their lives, the first two years to be exact. The most important being love and compassion. If a child is not able to bond with their mother, they will never be able to bond in a healthy way with anyone else for the rest of their lives. This tells me that the self, this aspect that we choose to see as an illusion, may in fact be quite real. The reasoning being simply that if you take an adult that hasn't properly bonded with their mother and try to explain anything that you just have, they will come away from the discussion completely perplexed and indifferent, in fact they may not even see the need for the discussion in the first place. So from that I ask the question, if we cannot even remember these first moments, the moments when we are held and loved and cared for, yet they play such an important part in the nature of our existence, the way we view ourselves, what does that ultimately say about the idea that we do not exist, that the self is an illusion and that simply seeing through this illusion will allow us to accept the world as it is? If someone who suffered from severe neglect is unable to experience this, then can it honestly be said to be true? Isn't it worth exploring the idea that the mere ability to examine self requires that we must first become healthy selves? In an even broader sense, it's not the fact that we are unable to examine the self that limits this ability, but rather the ability to bond with other selves, to view other selves as being worthy of our attention, to have a good sense of our relation with the whole. It is only when we can do this that we ultimately see the worth of being free of anguish, because it is the knowledge of suffering that urges us to be free from suffering. One might say that one who has not bonded properly is perpetually suffering, hence the inability to understand or acknowledge the importance of being free of it. I know I'm going on, but I have a point that I want to clarify. This seems to me to be an indication that, even though we come from nothing, we are not nothing and that is ultimately the reason why we cannot escape ourselves, even after understanding the illusion of self, that at our base we are intricately connected to our body and the way our minds develop through contact with others. In fact the conditioning that we decry is in fact necessary and needed, in order for us to truly evolve into beings that can see the ultimate need to escape self. If it is just an illusion one could say that we could simply put a child in a box with a water and food and they would develop as they should, but that's not what happens and any sane person would be completely horrified by that idea. My belief that self is real and concrete stems from our intimate need to bond with others, and I believe that the Buddha also saw this need ultimately, especially when it comes down to the eightfold path. It is through compassion that one becomes closer to others and it is only through compassion that one can ultimately understand the true nature of suffering and the true need to end that suffering. Hence the paradox seems to be, that only in becoming closer to others, do we ultimately understand the need to detach from others. Even more important, if the self is not completely defined in infancy, if it is only our interaction with the world that helps that to become defined, is it safe to say that the self may not be the product of the void, but rather the product of something that originally came from that void, that the conscious human being we are grows within us? If so where does that put us? Anyways, I'm not sure where else to go with that, but I thought it was worth pointing out. Aaron