Aaron

Hello Seth, My take on this has nothing to do with TzuJanLi's actions, good or bad, but rather the idea that people who claim to be one or the other, should be one or the other. You are not a Buddhist by simply saying, I am a Buddhist, but rather by being a Buddhist, by practicing the Eightfold Path. That includes sila, which is right action, right speech, and right livelihood. How can one claim to have genuine knowledge of samadhi, if they ignore those aspects of the path that lead to further understanding of it? My argument is that one should not allow self to dictate their actions, that one should be selfless, give themselves over to their practice, abandon the ego, the need to be right or prove truth and rather live as they are supposed to. There's a lyric by Mumford and Sons that talks about one aspect of this, forgiveness, "Love will not betray you, dismay or enslave you, It will set you free Be more like the man you were made to be. There is a design, An alignment to cry, At my heart you see, The beauty of love as it was made to be..." Yes it's a song lyric, but I also feel it is infinitely true. It is only when we truly forgive and live a practice of compassion, love, that we will be as we were made to be. I'm not sure if that's Buddhist, but I do think it's very much in line with sila. There should be no ruthless truth, but rather simply the truth as we understand it, and in understanding that, understanding that others might not see it that way, nor must they. Aaron

I would say your understanding of Buddhism is well represented in your practice of the Eightfold path. You are clearly practicing compassion now. I think the problem isn't reflected in what the site is, but rather the nearly rabid attacks that take place when anyone seems to post something contrary to what Buddhism teaches. You have many people here professing to be Buddhists, understanding the tenants of Buddhism, but not actually practicing the tenants of Buddhism, at least not in their interactions with others on this site. I can tell you that I don't see people behaving like this when I visit the Buddhist temple in my neighborhood, so I'm thinking it's something attributed to Western Buddhism. Aaron edit- I think the title of this thread speaks volumes about how Buddhists behave on this site. I would respect their ideas a lot more if they actually practiced what they preach.

Hello Folks, My opinion, especially of late, is that all religions are by nature intolerant. There are many religions that seem to preach tolerance, but in most instances it's always a bit left handed. You hear things like, be tolerant of other people's ignorance. How is this tolerant? It's like saying, "be nice to that person, even if they are ugly." Does that really change the fact you think they're ugly? Are you going to be nice enough to ask that person out on a date? I'm not really interested in posting a long thread about this, because I think it's so evident there really doesn't need to be much more said. I would like to hear how other people feel about this, in particular whether they see this as something that's benefiting mankind or hurting it. Aaron

Hello Vortex, Thanks for taking that quote out of context. I don't remember where I insinuated that one should consider someone else ignorant because they don't agree with what I believe to be true. In fact I think I've been consistently advocating the opposite, that even if one believes they know what's true, they should still be compassionate and loving of others. I question how truly spiritually enlightened someone is if they aren't capable of being honestly tolerant of someone else. I know that sounds a bit hypocritical, but again, I'm only questioning their spiritual progress, not denying them their right to be treated with respect and compassion. I also think that with age you'll see that intentionally trying to cause distress or provoking people, is not only childish, but also leads others to view you as being such. Aaron

Hello folks, Before I begin this topic I would like to make it clear that the following is my own opinion, based on my own experience and knowledge or lack there of. It is not meant to be taken as fact, but rather an examination of the state of awareness as I have experienced it. I am not a guru or wise man by any means. I am simply a human being, the same as you. I am often wrong, so please keep that in mind. I hope that in the course of this dialogue we can share with each other our own concepts of enlightenment in a free and open manner, whereby we do not judge each other, but rather come to understand each other better. Since I've started many topics such as this, many of you already have a general idea of where I stand on the concept of enlightenment. For me enlightenment is not the end of contemplation, but rather very much the beginning. This may sound strange to those who have come to an understanding of enlightenment through an Eastern religion or philosophy, or may only have a general idea of what enlightenment entails, so I will try to explain exactly why I believe this to be true. Before I can do that I think it's only fair that I explain what I believe enlightenment to be. For me enlightenment is simply the awareness of the nature of one's self being simply one. What I mean to say is that we have not only come to an understanding of the fact that we are everything in existence, but we have also experienced this. How one does this is not important. Most people who have reached this state of enlightenment have done so through meditation, but that is not the sole way to reach it. Again, it's not important how one reaches enlightenment, or even if they have reached enlightenment. Enlightenment, in my opinion, changes nothing but the state of awareness one has in regards to the universe. With that said, one might ask what I mean when I say, "everything in existence?" Well the intellectual explanation is simply that we understand that there is only one thing in existence, whether you call that the Godhead, god-spark, god-self, Krishna, or universe. When you have reached enlightenment you have realized on an experiential level that you are that God-self. I achieved this revelation while laying on my bed and reading a book. I had similar experiences while I was meditating on numerous occasions, but it was during this rather mundane activity that I believe I truly experienced being. I was no longer simply Aaron, but instead for a moment I was everything that existed. I understood the nature of who I was and the illusion of separation. Many may doubt this because my own experience does not seem to be in line with other traditional ideas of enlightenment, well that's fine and I encourage you to have doubts. After all anyone can claim enlightenment, in fact a well read individual can give you intimate details on the exact nature of enlightenment. My response to those people who have questions is to never accept someone's claims of such a thing. Even a person who is humble, kind, compassionate, and knowledgeable may not be enlightened. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of people who have reached enlightenment are still very much the same as before they reached enlightenment, the only difference being that after enlightenment they've reached an understanding that wasn't there before. I believe that there are different degrees of enlightenment and that simply experiencing oneness is not enough, that there is more after that. I don't necessarily believe that upon understanding the nature of oneness that one inherently understands the nature of the universe. Enlightenment no more qualifies one to be a brain surgeon, than it does a psychologist, rather it allows one a unique understanding of exactly who they are, and it is this knowledge that should propel one to continue their practice. Anyways, I have a tendency to go on and I don't want to do that. If anyone has questions I'd be happy to answer them, but I would also very much like to hear about other people's experiences in regards to enlightenment, whether they are little enlightenments or big, so feel free to share. In the end this isn't supposed to be about my own experience, but rather a thread where we can bounce or own experiences and ideas regarding enlightenment off each other. I just would like to ask once more that you keep in mind this thread wasn't started as a place to judge other people, but rather to share our own experiences and learn more about other people's experiences and ideas about enlightenment. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Xabir, I'm not just saying this, but I actually do understand what you've said, at least when you describe the experience. I was describing very much the same thing, the only difference is that we've come to different realizations regarding the cause, or no-cause. This is why I have been pressing for a description of the experience, rather than the logical and intellectual realization. I think, very much, that the former is impossible to explain, and that the latter tries very hard to rationalize, thus comes the intellect attempting to come to terms with something that is beyond man's capacity to truly rationalize. I will admit that my explanations do not do the experience justice, but I will also admit that my final understanding of the experience did not match your own. I still think this has a lot to do with our practice, whether it is Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, or Christian, our final understanding is often tied to the explanation we've been given. The Universe revolves around the sun. We know now that this isn't true, but at one time, because everyone was told that it was true, people just accepted it. When they made new discoveries in astronomy, they attributed it to this phenomena. It wasn't until Galileo came along and figured out the truth that we actually started to consider that this might not be true. If we continue to accept and define our experiences, based on what we've been told to expect, then our minds will automatically try to attribute our experience to those expectations. I really enjoyed your explanation. Thank you for sharing it. No, I will probably not read anything more about Buddhism. I really don't want to pollute my experience with other philosophies if I don't have to. If it works for you, all the more power to you. I would just kindly remind you that knowing the truth, doesn't mean you have to press that truth on others. It's okay to allow people to believe they know something and there's absolutely no need to prove them wrong. Aaron

Hello folks, I recently read a post in another a thread that touched on the idea of self and it got me to thinking. As I've begun to learn about other philosophies and traditions, the one thing that seems inseparable, regardless of the religion or ideology is the concept of self. Whether you call it the ego, personality, or self-image, most religions seem to realize that the self, that part that is us is instrumental in understanding the underlying nature of reality. And why not? Isn't it true that the self is our vehicle for understanding? But my question, the question that I'd like to answer is this, what is the true self? I understand using the word "true" might stir up a bit of debate, because some would question the notion of there even being a true self, but my use of the word isn't meant to indicate there is a definitive measure by which we can identify the self, but rather that there is an individual self that exists within us all, that cannot be denied or disproved. That, as Shakespeare once said, "I think, therefore I am." If it was only that simple! Then again, maybe it is. One thing that I've learned in the last few years, especially examining Eastern religions is that we attach a great deal of our problems on this notion of self. It is this idea that our personal experience causes us pain that causes many of us to want to eradicate this self in the hopes that it will somehow end suffering. I think that it is our misunderstanding of the nature of self, the true self, that misguides us, that leads us to view the world in this dualistic way, that somehow there must be good and bad, self and no-self, that opposites are separate, rather than interconnected. Of course that is a topic for another discussion, but it still is important to consider, especially since it is the painful experience of being that is instrumental in causing us to misinterpret the true nature of existence. Isn't it true, as Faisal touched on elsewhere, that our self, the ego self, that part that allows us to interact with the world, is constantly trying to understand the present by identifying it with the past? Isn't it true that our experiences in childhood our the road map to how we experience things today? If this is true, then it can be said that our self, that part we identify as us, is not simply who we are today, but who we have been from the very moment we conceived of ourselves. We are as much today the child we were as we are the person we are. Then isn't it just as true that unless we understand who we were, we can't understand who we are? Can't we see the way we react to things in the way we interacted with them in the past? So here lies the question, if we are not simply our selves today, but our selves as we have always been, can we really simply understand ourselves by examining who we are now? And even if we do understand who we were and are, is that enough to truly understand the nature of self, at least the mind-ego-self? Isn't there more to it? Since I was a teenage I've always believed we are made up of three things, the body, mind, and soul. For me the mind is very much the ego self, that part of us that we identify as self, the part that seems to exist within the seat of the mind, the part that examines the world around us and identifies our place within that world, that is the part that I've been discussing. Yet I do believe there are other parts, parts that are just as much our self as this is. The body self is perhaps the most misunderstood of all, because we are under the misguided notion that somehow it is not in our control. Even though we might hold our breath, we at some level believe that we are merely drivers in a vehicle, that much like we drive a car, we can steer it, cause it go where we want, fill it with fuel, but ultimately we have no control over what it is. The notion that we are the vehicle is absurd to us, it's like saying just because we are holding the steering wheel, that somehow we are the car. No! The car is an extension of us, at best, but even that's going overboard. Really we are nothing more than drivers. We can care and maintain the car, use it to take us where we need to go, but ultimately the car is a thing that can give up on us at any moment. When you think about it, it seems to make sense. After all our body grows but we don't make it grow. Our heart beats, but we don't make it beat. It's not like we consciously cause it to beat, if we did, perhaps it would make much more sense to us, but therein lies the lie. We do cause our body to grow, just as we cause our heart to beat. If we get excited doesn't our heart skip a beat. If we suffer too much anxiety wont our hair fall out, our our blood pressure rise? Doesn't this mean that on some level, a level that we aren't even aware of, that we do control these things? Do we really need to be aware of the fact that we cause these things to occur to prove that we make them occur? So if we do actually control these things, doesn't it make sense that we are every bit our actual body? That our body is not a vessel for the mind, but the actual mind? Doesn't it make sense that we are our fingernails, our toes and hair and even our skin? If that's true then can we really see the mind as separate from the body? Doesn't it make more sense that they are one and that it's this notion of individuation, the soul's influence on our desire to understand it's place that causes us to view ourselves as separate. Could it not be the fault of that third part of us, the soul that really causes this malady of misunderstanding in the first place? And doesn't it make sense that it would do this? The soul, of the three, is the most out of place. The soul transcends, even as it coexists. It cannot touch or smell. It cannot reason or understand, rather it carries the weight of existence within it's being, and it's that weight that leads it to feel separate, to somehow equate what we understand as being unreal or at the very least, unsatisfactory. It is the soul that leads us to believe there is more to everything, because it is more, yet it cannot cry out and tell us what it needs, because it has no voice. It cannot poke us, because it has no finger, it cannot lament because it has no conscious, instead it prods the very remote parts of our being, with ethereal tendrils unmeasurable by science. It propels the two to seek what the third cannot seek on its own. It propels the two to reconcile the existence of the third, to answer why it is there and what it is there for, even if it on some level it already knows. If this is true then doesn't it make sense that if we are our mind and body and they are the same that we are just as much our soul and that the soul is the same as well? If this is true then isn't the notion of individuation absurd? It's like saying we are three people instead of one, that we are a body and a mind and a soul, but if that's true, then how can a body, a mind, and a soul exist separately? They can't! The body, mind, and soul are the same, it is only the fact that we are trapped in this mind awareness, this belief that we are passengers that prevents us from relating to all three and understanding that all three are one. My soul is as real as I am. It is the part of me that yearns for something without answer. The part that recognizes something is wrong, even though I don't know why. It is not the unconscious, but very much awakened and watching. It cannot say in words what is wrong, nor logically deduce how to solve the problem, yet it intuitively knows when something is not right and lets us know. The fact that I cannot point it out to you or take it out like a shiny watch and show it to you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It would be nice to hold it up to your ear and say, "listen, can you hear it tick?" But then, perhaps you can hear it tick. The weight of the world resides on the soul. That doesn't mean that it is awash in guilt or sorrow, but rather that it is the piece of you that exists within all other things, it is the part of you that connects you to me and me to you. It is the part that exists within the pebbles on the sidewalk and the water at the beach. It is the nature of everything that exists, the piece that allows everything to exist as it does, yet unless it pushes us, we never notice it. This is the true nature of self. The nature that exists within us. We are body-mind-soul. Even though my body and mind do not touch you, my soul does. Even though my body-mind are every bit a part of this universe, what really connects me to you, the part that is undoubtedly you is that part that exists within each of us at the same time. The soul is that part that seeks individuation, not because it believes it's separate, but rather because it knows it's connected and that only by working as individuals can the whole exist as it does. This illusion of self is not a punishment, but a requirement for existence. It is only by understanding our own place within the grand totality of existence that we can do our part within that existence. The soul keeps us going, keeps us seeking, but it never answers us, because the answer is already there. It's there in this moment and the next. It was there the moment we conceived our place in the world. If I made one mistake in this lifetime, it was falling for this notion that self does not exist. That there is a no-self. That idea is not only false, but it is perhaps the most misleading notion of all. We exist as self. The universe is our physical self. Just as the tiny bacteria in our stomach that is necessary for us to digest food is a part of us, we are a part of the universe. Just as the mind is necessary to direct the body, the soul is necessary to direct the mind. We are body-mind-spirit, not a separation of three, but one. If you took away the body, the mind and spirit would not be self, just as if you took away the mind or spirit there would be no self. All three define who we are. In the end we are really all one being, yet we are really separate selves. That is the beauty of it all. I am you, but I am me! There is a totality, but there is also the beauty of individuality. I don't need to be exactly like you, nor you like me. We are all one thing, the universe, but we are parts of that universe as well. Anyways, I probably made this a bit longer than it needed to be, but it was a realization that I wanted to share. I would love to hear your own thoughts. Please remember to be kind and compassionate. Aaron

Hello Blasto, Thanks for the suggested reading, but I don't hear an argument that seems to disprove what I'm asserting. In fact there aren't. Tell me that the Buddhists don't believe that they hold the "true" way, or the Christians, or the Hindus, Taoists, and the list go on. Tell me that they don't hold a passive intolerance for others. In regards to my "dark childhood", I think the irony is that most of my friends are Christians from my "dark childhood". They don't seem to care that I'm gay or that I'm not Christian. I think I've hung out with them the last few weekends in fact. I remember the last conversation we had was about High Virtue and believe it or not, these intolerant Christians said that in the end the concept of high virtue, virtue without moral directive, made sense. My point is that the majority of people practicing religions are unable to be tolerant, because they are unable to accept other people's beliefs as being valid. Your actions here are an excellent example of that. You believe you're right, so you set out to disprove me, by showing me the truth. There is no truth, just what dwells within the minds of men. All of this so called consciousness that's evolved, is nothing more than mans need to complicate the simple. I really find you to be one of the worst offenders in this regard, hence the reason I had you on ignore for so long, and I'm returning you to ignore. I'm not interested in your desire to intellectualize everything. I am not interested in learning the truth about Buddhism, nor Hinduism, or any other -ism. If you had understood the original post, rather than relate it to your own experiences, you'd understand that. Peace be with you, but I really don't want to be a part of your passive insults and apparent ego driven need to diminish others. Aaron

Hello Sloppy, I would have to debate whether or not passive tolerance works, in fact I think it helps the fanatics to accomplish their goals, because many of the passively tolerant see the fanatics as standing up for what they believe is right. Whether it's Christians protesting at a soldier's funeral or terrorists doing what they do (Muslim or Irish). I think the only thing that keeps most people tolerant is that they relate to their religion culturally, rather than as a religion. An example being an American will most likely identify themselves as a Christian, a Yemeni Muslim, and so on. Those people within that culture that identify themselves with another religion may be tolerated, but only so far as the law allows. For me religions, whether they are Eastern or Western teach intolerance because they teach that they are right and others are wrong. They proscribe what is moral and immoral, and for the most part the culture follows this morality. Now if religions are vastly different there is a strong underlying distrust that occurs. A good example is the fact that the small gnostic Christian populations that existed within Eastern countries were only able to survive by isolating themselves. Lets not even get started on the radicals who come along with different ideas. Things can start out very nice, polite debates and such, but if the person who is dissenting doesn't choose to shut up or convert, then those niceties fade quickly. Anyways, thanks for your input. Aaron

Hello Erj1069, I think they do, but as others have said, it's because they are different. The moment you stand against the status quo you begin to be seen as a threat. We're taught from a young age to be normal, to be a part of the group, when we start to deviate from that group then people tend to see us as a threat. Where are our loyalties? If push comes to shove will we stand by the group? The reason for these beatings is simply to try to get us back in line. Like the child who refuses to eat their vegetables, we will be punished until we eat our vegetables. Funny thing is, we can complain about eating our vegetables and no one seems to care that we don't want to do it, or dislike it, just so long as we do it. Smiling and saying thank you does help though. Aaron

Hello Xabir, Thank you for your insightful post. I would rather have heard how you came about reaching enlightenment, but to each his own. Aaron edit- I think one of the things that turns me off personally about Buddhism, is the absolutism involved in it. There is no room for others thoughts or ideas, rather it seems that it is always presented as the absolute truth. I don't want to debate this here, because the intent of this thread is to talk about our own personal experiences regarding enlightenment, what occurred and what happened and more importantly to be tolerant of those other experiences, not judging them, but listening to what others have shared and sharing our own experiences. I tried to express that in my original post, but apparently some people have missed that idea.

Hello Blasto, I think this is a question you should answer for yourself. I don't think there is anything wrong with marijuana, nor any substance, unless one uses it in excess. I know many people believe that if they start to smoke that it will lead them to drink again, but honestly speaking, I know far too many tokers that remain sober to actually believe this. I work in a field that requires frequent drug test and I can't afford to come up positive. If I didn't have to worry about that, then maybe I'd think about smoking, maybe not. I still don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't hurt to get others opinions. Aaron

Hello Simple Jack, You should let this go. No good for you will come of this. We are like two children debating about the rules of a game that we've made up. If you truly must discuss this then let me make a few points. First, I never directed my comments at you in particular, but rather everyone. I don't think you are a bad person in any sense, maybe a bit insistent, but not bad in the least. I understand you mean well and that what you're debating is not simply out of a need for discourse, but rather out of a sincere belief that you do understand something that I don't. That's noble, really it is, but what I would recommend is that you remember that there is a time for all things, including a time to lay things to rest. Intentions are funny things. We like to think that they matter, but in the grand scheme of things they don't. If you have good intentions, but it ends up causing something bad to happen, does that change the fact that something bad happened? Intentions should not be used as a defense for one's actions, but rather one should admit when they've done wrong and simply apologize. To accept responsibility for what you've done, without qualifying that blame, is a sign of High Virtue. I want to also make it clear that I am not blaming you for anything. Yes you might have insulted me, but you clearly felt provoked and it was a natural response. I would not have you apologize, but rather ask that in the future we treat each other as brothers sitting together for a cup of tea. I think something that I've realized, that Deci Belle helped me to realize in another thread, is that we probably are much closer in thought than what appears on the surface. The only difference is that I don't define it the same way you do. Is this world an illusion, yes, but for me the illusion must exist in order for reality to exist. Something needs to exist for nothing to exist. I think that Buddha understood this and tried to teach it initially, but his followers couldn't understand, so he went about explaining it in a way that was easier to understand. This of course is my opinion, so please take it as that, and not an attack on your faith. Do I believe that I need to further my practice? Yes, by all means, I am simply saying that meditation isn't the only way, nor necessarily the best way to do this. Is there original nature? Yes. Is there something before original nature? Yes. One we can know in this life, the other we can't. Again, my opinion. There are things we will never be able to understand or explain, the notion that we can is absurd to me. If you really wish to discuss this topic with me, then tell me what you feel and experience, rather than what you've been told the experience is. I ask that before you do this you clear your mind and examine it and explain to me the sensation, the knowledge gained, and the effect of your experience. It is from that point that this discussion will truly go further, rather than turn in circles. I honestly believe that when you can see the things in this life that are illusions, morality, philosophy, and religion to name a few, then you can begin to see these experiences for what they really are and from there you can begin to bear witness to the Sea of Beauty. Once you've witnessed this vast ocean, you will find that you have more questions than answers, and that is truly the beauty of it all. I know nothing, of that I am sure. Aaron

Hello Hagar, I enjoyed your post. I used to live in Washington State, from where I was I could look out my window and see Mount Ranier (on a clear day). At first it was very awe inspiring, but after awhile, the more you see it, the less amazing it seems. It's taken nearly a decade in Florida, a land without mountains, to really appreciate it again. I understand what you mean by just forgetting about "It", allowing "It" to become what it's intended to be, but I think even doing nothing, is doing something. Wu Wei after all. I think for many people it takes time to realize that they need to let go, to just experience things, to understand the moment for what it is. I also think that, as Kate pointed out, there is no end of me, that those moments when I believe me to be gone are fleeting, I will always return. The Hindu and Buddhist refer to this, Samadhi as it's called. The notion of self is eradicated and in it's place is the absence of self, the realization that everything that exists is only an illusion. Again, this realization is fleeting, it fades in time, and in order to continue to appreciate it, one must experience it again and again. For me, this inability to permanently annihilate self is evidence that the self does exist. I also don't necessarily believe that life is suffering, but rather that suffering is part of life. In my opinion, one should place no more importance on it, than any other experience. In fact I think it is much more beneficial to understand that all things are pleasing, for everywhere that suffering resides, there resides pleasure as well, for without it, suffering cannot exist. If one is to eradicate suffering, one must also eradicate pleasure. If one is able to do this, then I'm not certain how, for something cannot not-exist, unless something also exists, at least in my opinion. Notions of annihilation are very much illusions, just as this world is an illusion. Of course it's important to remember without the reality, the illusion itself can't exist. I do understand what you are saying, and I think I heard Buddha say it once, in so many words. Simply "forgetaboutit". If we can do this, then I agree, we will experience it without even trying. Anyways, thank you, Aaron

Hello Kate, I think it does happen all the time, as you mentioned. As you alluded to, if we don't know what we're experiencing, I think it's hard to understand what it is. I try very hard not to argue these points, because I do feel that no one has the "in" on enlightenment. If one is happy practicing what they practice, that's fine, but I am certain that there is no need to inform someone that there is need for enlightenment. If there is one thing I've learned it's that I am the same as I have always been. These definitions are only tools to understand ourselves better. The only thing that changes is our experience and our actions. Hopefully in changing these actions our experience can be beneficial to others. Aaron

Hello Deci Belle, Thanks for your response. I think we are very much saying the same things. I think many people view existence and non-existence, self and no-self, as separate things, but I don't think that's so. I think they are the same thing, like computer code, one is a zero, the other a one, without both reality cannot be designed. Although both may seem to be different things, the zero and one are intricately linked in the same experience, they just exist at different spectrums of that experience. Aaron

Hello Bla... err... Marblehead, I would say one should never say "can't", but rather that they are unable to right now, at least in matters such as these. I am simply stating the opinion that hate propagates hate, that in order for us to ever be able to live in peace with each other, that we must first be rid of hate, and more importantly fear. Fear is the basis of hate after all. As far as people that hurt children and women, they are sick and need to be treated, but again, a society and culture is defined by how they treat the most heinous of their people. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, There is never an instance when one cannot act compassionately. Compassion is caring for someone and doing what is in their best interest. In the same way, you must also not lose sight of the greater picture, so if a person is harming others, then you must act. If your dog gets rabies, you still love the dog, but you still must put it down, not only for the sake of others, but to ease its own suffering as well. Do you beat the dog to death or try to find a quick and painless way to deal with it? That's what I'm talking about, taking the gentlest approach that one can take. When we allow hate and avarice to dictate our actions then we lose sight of compassion and begin to tread a dangerous road, one that is rife with pain and suffering. The degree of suffering is almost always dictated by the degree of hate. I believe that one who is even minimally aware of their own nature can sense this and understand that it's not just a hypothesis but part of who we are. Where we lost our way, I don't know, but I am certain that we can find our way back, that if we as a people and race cease to view each others as competition, but rather as brothers and sister, mothers and fathers, then we can begin to find a way to live in peace. We as individuals can start this process simply by extending our hand when we can. Whether that is giving food or a kind word, it does matter, regardless of how small the gesture is. Kindness breeds kindness, hate breeds hate. It's as simple as that. Sincerely, I do love you and I wish you well, but I also wish that you could understand how your actions effect others. Peace be with you, Aaron edited- To correct who I was actually talking to. I still love Blasto.

Hello Marblehead, In my opinion our actions define who we are. We choose how we interact with people and that interaction inherently effects how others define us. The Tao Teh Ching references this notion, that it is what we do that shows others who we truly are, rather than what we say. It is fine to laugh, but should we laugh at others expense? It is fine to disagree, but should we diminish others when we disagree. I try very hard to respect others, even if I disagree with their beliefs. I oftentimes try to examine people's actions in the context of their culture, what drives them to do what they do. When I can see this, then it is easier for me to be tolerant of their behavior and understand that if fate had been different, it could be me doing what they are doing. This is, I believe, part of understanding the bigger picture, how we are each connected and when we can understand this we can truly behave in a conscionable and compassionate manner. It is one of the reasons I think it's very important to understand the nature of self, because in understanding our nature, we can understand the nature of others. Aaron

Hello Otis, Very well said, but I think it's also important to remember that when we have these experiences, that they can fade over time. When that happens, what do we do? In my case I don't necessarily try to relive the original experience, but as you have stated so well here, I begin to "live clearly", using the experience as a catalyst for change. Meditation only takes you so far (IMO), at some point one must start to apply those changes to one's life, if they don't then what is the ultimate purpose? Aaron

Hello Kate, Enlightenment is a fickle thing, at least in regards to how most people define it. It seems that many people feel that the similarity of experience is what authenticates enlightenment, or, if you don't experience my form of enlightenment, then you haven't experienced it. I don't necessarily believe that. I think that enlightenment can be different for each person. I'm not sure if I like the term "break", but I understand what you're saying and I think you might be onto something. Aaron

This thread brings to mind what Watts calls 'the game of black and white'. Simply put people tend to view things as either or, black or white. They fail to recognize the shades of grey that lay between the two or that the two are actually just different spectrums of the same thing. In the same way we tend to view ourselves as being separate from others, when in fact we aren't. The simalcrum we create of that individual is our attempt to identify this person as being separate from ourselves. We fail to see that the other person is in fact intimately connected in the sense that their experience is along the same spectrum of our own experience (existence), that simply viewing someone as being separate does not mean we are separate. Compassion does not arise from understanding that people don't actually exist, but rather it stems from intimately understanding that there is no separation between me and you, but rather we are both "It", just we reside on different spectrums of "It". Aaron

Hello Steve, I believe that a higher power actually formed everything in existence and dictated the direction that life took, whether it was through the process of evolution or some other process. I don't necessarily believe that all people who examine evolution and question it's scientific merit are necessarily anti-Darwin. I don't actually question evolution mind you, for me it's quite and open and closed case, just making a point. Aaron

Hello Jack, You are too emotionally attached to this topic, so I will not be able to continue to have this conversation with you. Peace be with you. Aaron