Aaron

Hello Jack, This is the point I'm trying to make, which seems to be getting dismissed. When someone gives you directions, they have to give you landmarks in order for you to know which direction to take. If they say, "you'll know when you get there because you'll see a big tree with a sign saying, "you feel empty", then when you get to that location, you more often than not look for what you've been told to expect, rather than what else is there. So you reach your destination and see the sign and say, "okay, I'm here!" But in being there you don't realize everything else that is there. So lets for one second consider that someone has reached that destination without being directed there, then it is highly likely that they may be more apt to look around a bit more and see what else is there. I'm not saying that Buddhist's don't experience what they experience when they reach these destinations, what I'm saying is that if you are told what to expect, then more often than not, that is what you will experience. I have no doubts that I have experienced a lot of what's being mentioned here, I'm just saying that because I experienced it without any prior direction, that what I got from the experience is different, because I didn't enter the experienced with a preconceived notion of what to expect. Hence, I don't feel the need to "meditate more" because I've already realized what is being talked about and came away with a different understanding. When I say I understand the nature of the physical world and that I am connected to everything in the physical world, it's because I have not only understood it intellectually, but also I have experienced it. I can experience it when I see the tree and see it's branches, not as simply branches, but as expressions of myself reaching out to the sun. I can see it in my mind-self, not only intellectually, but when I experience my interactions with you and I feel the nature of your argument, but also the capacity for kindness and love that resides within you. I can experience it in my spirit-self when I feel it prodding me to compassion, to love you for who you are and not simply for what I believe you to be. My argument is that in order to fully realize our self, we must be done with beliefs and instead rely on our experience as we experience it. To look at what we've been told objectively, rather than follow it based on blind faith. I think it is only when we can do this that we can really experience the nature of self and our original nature, the nature that, if it was allowed to grow as it should have, would recognize all these things without any doubt or questioning, without any need to seek out the truth and rather it would experience the authenticity of everything that is experienced for what it actually is. I'm willing to discuss this with you further, so long as remain objective and don't presume to know my experience or decide it's validity based on yours. When I mentioned that you admitted to not having these experiences yourself, I am referring to your comments in I believe the Nature or Consciousness thread. I didn't mean to infer that you haven't experienced these things, in fact you might have, but what you came away with may have been different from what I did, based on your own expectations about that experience. Honestly, peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Jack, You're entitled to your opinion. Since you've resorted to insults, I'm not going to continue to have this conversation with you. Aaron edit- The last comment I'll make regarding this topic is that I do think what is really upsetting you is that you still can't prove anything that you're advocating. It's all conjecture based on someone else's experiences, which you admit you yourself have never had. I can prove what I'm talking about based on my own experience and so far no one has been able to disprove it, because it is based on an actual experience that everyone has participated in.

Hello Jack, Actually I've known about the influence of Buddhism on Taoism and Confucianism for awhile now and I've actually commented on it several times in other threads. My point was the original teachings from the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu make no mention of it. The problem here is that you feel Buddha must be right and because I don't believe Buddha was right, I'm wrong. What I know for a fact is that what I made mention of can not only be proven scientifically, but also is a logical argument that can't, at its base, be disproved. What you're stating is conjecture based on a mystical experience that can't be scientifically proven or logically proven for that matter. That's fine with me, but don't say I'm nuts because I prefer to believe in something that can be explained without having to meditate in a cave for ten years. This notion that the true answer is the most complex answer is really ridiculous. Sometimes the answer is simple and it's so simple it's smacking you in the face and you don't even realize it. I've chosen not to look for the answers based on the teachings of mythical figures from the 5th century BC, but rather what I understand and experience in the here and now. What I do tend to take offense at, is this notion that because I don't agree with you, that somehow I am ignorant and incapable of understanding what you're quoting. I would wager I understand it a bit more than you could imagine. I spent two decades meditating every day and in that time I experienced a great deal of what you're talking about, the only difference is I didn't have any dogma to define it for me, so I came about my own conclusions. I'm not going to argue with you about this, but can't you see how constantly attacking people who differ in opinion to the Buddhist ideology is not only disrespectful but definitively non-Buddha-like? You said it for yourself, buddha's words were essentially, "forgetaboutit" so I recommend you do that and let this conversation return to it's original topic, rather than the topic the Buddhist's have created, which is, "How to prove there is no self." Aaron

Hello Steve, I understand. In the last few days I've become reticent to define it as well. It seems like, as you've stated, people have these concrete ideas and if you propose something different they can oftentimes take it as an affront to their belief systems. I'm beginning to wonder if enlightenment exists as well, at least whether or not we can transcend the individual "I" and actually become "God". I think that for me it's that we become aware that we are "God", but the bodies that we reside within and the mind residing within the body are infinitely tied to this world and hence, unable to fully comprehend the "God" that we truly are. I think we can come close though. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, I've been dirty far too many times too. I think that's why I'm reticent to get dirty if I can help it. Sometimes I am goaded back down into the gutter, luckily on most of those instances the smell or bruises reminds me of why I didn't want to go down there in the first place. Aaron

Hello Zerotao, I touched on your last idea in the thread "The Nature of Consciousness." I think you may be onto something regarding our unconscious minds being more capable of understanding Tao than our conscious, but I also view the unconscious being the spiritual aspect of our self, so it would, in my opinion make more sense that this was true. Aaron

Hello Steve, I think you make a great point. What are using as a definition of enlightenment? For me enlightened simply means one has a thorough (not complete) knowledge of a topic. In that sense one could ask if having a thorough knowledge (and of course practice) of a specific philosophy means that have also become psychologically mature? I think you are right, that in most cases someone who has achieved this degree of awareness will be more psychologically mature than others, but I don't believe that it removes ones deeper character defects, as I mentioned elsewhere, it just allows one to be more aware and hopefully more capable of diminishing that defect. Aaron

Hello Blasto, I have you on ignore, so I missed this post until Cowtao quoted it. I wanted to respond to your comments, because I think they shed an untruthful light on my regards for Buddhism. I am very fond of certain sects of Buddhism, in particular Zen and Ch'an. In fact I hold a very deep regard for Zen. I practiced Zazen for years without knowing it, so it would be very hypocritical of me to denigrate the process. If I have issues it's with the idea that Buddhism is the only real truth and everything else is delusional. On this forum in particular if you post something that seems to contradict what Buddhism says people come out of the woodwork to instruct you on the grand truth. If you disagree then it's because you are incapable of realizing or understanding this great truth, or that your own beliefs are delusions. I didn't start this thread with the intent of debating what form of self is true, but rather to discuss the nature of self as we experience it, by sharing my own view. If I made a comment about religions in the original post it was to show how my view was different from the contemporary views held by most religions. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, Didn't we have this conversation once before? I think the consensus was that compassion doesn't mean that you allow someone to beat the crap out of you, only that you don't beat the crap out of someone else (with no good reason). With that said, if someone is going down into the gutter, I think I'll let them go alone so I don't get dirty. I am advocating compassion, but not requiring it. If someone doesn't feel the need to be compassionate or they believe strength should be countered with strength, then that's fine, they have that right. For me, I'm trying to get back to letting this stuff go, because in the end it's not worth the stress that comes along with it. Aaron

Hello Otis, I think it gets tricky when we examine things with absolute certainty. It's when we refuse to give other ideas credence that we have ceased to learn and begun to surround ourselves with the bedrock of ignorance. Keeping an open mind. Having tolerance for others. Understanding that what you see isn't necessarily what I see. If one can do these things, then I believe they're on their way to deeper insight. Aaron

I don't believe all that is without is within. I encourage people to look within because it is (imo) an integral part of understanding one's self for who they really are. Lao Tzu said, "He who knows others is clever, He who knows himself is truly wise" or something like that. I really can't argue with him, but I will just clarify that there's nothing wrong with knowing others or knowing "stuff", just that true wisdom begins with knowing yourself. Aaron

Yes even you. Aaron

Hello Folks, With the recent apparent rise in dissent regarding some topics, I thought it might be a good time to discuss the topic of Compassion again. Rather than start a new topic I will just refer to this one. In my recent experiences in this thread I can honestly say that I forgot about the need for compassion when dealing with others. It's hard sometimes, especially when you feel under attack, to show compassion for others, but perhaps that is the most important time to show compassion. For me the truest form of compassion, as I stated originally in this thread, is not one that is based on a moral requirement, but rather comes from deep within, compassion that is realized because one sees another suffering or because one has caused another to suffer and wants to sincerely ease that suffering. I think that an expression of compassion is tolerance, allowing others to believe what they believe without passing judgement on that belief. After all beliefs don't hurt people, people hurt people. I know that sounds corny, but it's true. I think compassion is lost in absolutes. When one feels that they are right without question, then where is the room for compassion in that knowledge? When one feels that they can press their views on another without considering the effects it has on another, then where is the room for compassion. It is only by accepting that, even if we believe we are correct, that we can still allow others to believe differently that compassion can be realized. I will try very hard to remember this because after all, we are all It and it's only by understanding this that we can truly allow compassion to arise and blossom in its highest form. Aaron edit- Not to be sappy, but I do love you all and I wish you the best.

I think it's comments like these that make it hard for ETs and Higher Beings to acclimate to normal society. These types of stereotypes perpetuate the misguided notion that they can't or don't want to be part of the community. I for one do not believe this for a second. Perhaps someday we can all live together, free from these stereotypes. ET can sit by man, man by higher being, and we can accept each other for who we are, rather than the stereotypes projected by the media and society. Aaron

I was thinking something similar, it stemmed from Manitou's comment about the USA being strong at one time. It brought to mind Teddy Rosevelt's qoute, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." What came to my mind is that the submissive and weak were hiding their weapons and waiting for the strong to turn around, then they were going to jump him. Of course that's not what it means. What it's actually saying is that the submissive and weak win over the strong, because they are subtle and flexible, they can submit and by submitting they will not end up dieing. Or as someone else said, "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." Aaron

See that's an explanation I can understand and wrap my brain around... thanks. Aaron

Well that's a relief. "Every pretty girl deserves to go to a ball." Hehehe... just a quote that came to mind, not saying you're a girl. Aaron

What constitutes a master? Who decides who is a master? I know lots of people teaching lots of things that are not masters, so this whole idea confuses me. I would think a true master would transcend the need for monetary gain and live a very simple and basic life, so that the material world was not a distraction. Just my own thought. Aaron

And I so wanted to see Zhang become realized... drat! Aaron

Hello Bodyofflight, I'm not sure where you get your ideas from and I'm pretty sure many others are wondering the same thing, that's why they're asking what you practice. I would also make the comment that I think you started this thread to stir up people, rather than generate actual inquiry on the topic. The reason that I can't take anything you say seriously is because you don't show respect for others. You don't admit when you are wrong or concede you might be wrong. You tend to view your own opinions as the only valid opinions and you also tend to insult people, at least to the limit the forum will allow. When your actions begin to reflect the spiritual maturity and knowledge you profess to have, then I think I can take you seriously, but until then all I see is someone who isn't willing to listen to others objectively because he is the only one that's right. Aaron edit- This isn't meant as an insult, but rather an observation of your behavior. Perhaps if you accept it as such, you can review your actions and decide for yourself whether it's something you need to address.

Hello Bodyoflight, I would only ask that you prove this to be true. Give me concrete evidence and I will agree, but so far all you seem to be doing is speculating and making esoteric comments that have no actual basis on fact. Elsewhere I've provided enough actual evidence (imo) to prove that there is no correlation between "enlightenment" and psychological maturity. It's this illusion that perpetrates much of the suffering. We define sins, instill people with guilt, and then direct them as to how to behave to be free of this suffering, whether in this life or next. The fact of the matter is that most people that set themselves up as gurus and teachers are also people that desire a degree of control over others. They choose to exert this control by making lofty claims and then directing people as to how those goals can be achieved. They are using their position to satisfy some deeper need that resides within their ego, a need that is not cleansed from spiritual awareness. In many cases these people use their position as a way to misdirect people. "I am a priest/monk/guru, obviously I'm not a child molester/con-man/sociopath." The people I trust most to teach me a spiritual path are those that are not seeking monetary compensation, do not tell me what to do, but rather share their own experience, and whose practice is defined by a higher virtue, rather than morality and ideology. Aaron

Hello Mizu, I would say that you have come upon a realization. One thing that Joseph Campbell talks about is the similarities of religious experience throughout religions, not only in archetypes, but also in phenomena. These different experiences are heavily dependent on culture, but not mutually exclusive. One who is raised in a Western Society may not be able to grasp the full cultural origins of an Eastern Practice and instead will adapt it so it works within their own cultural awareness. I think on a deeper level, understanding that these cultural and spiritual experiences are universal also helps us to understand exactly what you've come to understand, that the practice does not cause the experience, but rather we do. When one practices Qigung, Qabbalism, Tai Chi, or even transcendental meditation, they are essentially using the practice as a channel for something within them. The practice doesn't accomplish the experience, but rather the person does. The reason many of these practices (imo) were created was because someone achieved a spiritual experience and associated it with a physical or mental process and began to use that physical or mental process to continue to achieve the experience. (In other words the superstitious nature of man tried to explain something that could not be easily explained by associating it with something that could be explained.) I would encourage you to just be, as Ralis has, but I would also encourage you to examine exactly why you believe the things that you do, because in the end it is only by understanding the nature of our beliefs that we can ultimately return to our original nature. Essentially don't stop learning different practices, just be aware that the practice is a tool for realizing and using your own potential. Aaron

Does spiritual enlightenment mean psychological maturity? I don't think so, but I think the question should go deeper than that. I think that we should also remember that psychological maturity is examined according to social and cultural mores, so equating the two means that one is actually asking if one who is spiritually enlightened is socially and culturally well adapted. For me the answer is that it doesn't. At least not in the sense that spiritual enlightenment frees us from the constraints of the ego in a psychological and cultural sense. What I'm finding, especially in the last few days, is that spiritual enlightenment is very much defined by the individual. There is no real measuring stick, except the stick that measures it according to some religious or philosophical ideology. In that sense trying to pin down enlightenment is like trying to grab an oiled pig. Yes you might eventually grab it, but good luck holding on. It's slippery and it is constantly fighting you, either with someone else coming along that doesn't agree with an interpretation or simply because it does not seem to fit into some nicely defined niche. I've talked about this elsewhere, the idea that enlightenment or spiritual knowledge and experience, does not ultimately free one from their psychological problems. Some would say a spiritual awakening can, but that isn't entirely true. A spiritual awakening can help you get to the root cause of the problem, but it doesn't remove it, it only can help someone manage it better, if they actually see it as a problem in the first place. I think it is ultimately much more important to examine the self without using yardsticks such as psychology, philosophy, or religion, but rather examining the manifestations of one's own ego at their root. If one can do this, they can understand the nature of their ego and ultimately understand the original nature that resides within them. At that point they can address these issues, but again, they will not be gone, they will just be addressed. The idea that a spiritual force can somehow remove character defects seems to me to be wishful thinking, a product of one who wishes to end suffering so much that they will place blind faith on a process that has no actual basis of proof. Aaron

Hello Jetsun, This is a very interesting approach. One of the topics I did extensive research on in college was dissociative identity disorder, at the time called multiple personality disorder. Dissociative Identity Disorder is a disorder characterized by a splintering of the ego (or self) into separate ego-states (almost invariably caused by extreme trauma in early childhood). Most of these states serve a specific purpose, like the protector, or the ego-state that deals with pain, etc. The degree of complexity of each personality/ego state differs, in other words, some appear to be complete ego states, while others are relatively simple states. Now why I mention all of this is that in nearly every case of DID it is found that there is one distinct personality that is aware of everything and seems to possess a higher degree of wisdom or emotional balance than the others. (Also, as an aside, keep in mind also that in a large number of cases these ego-states have different physical characteristics than the actual main personality/ego, such as allergies, blood pressure, eye prescriptions, and handedness.) Now for the interesting part, as research was done into the disorder it was found that under hypnosis psychologists were able to reproduce DID in perfectly normal people. In other words they were able to create ego-states, in some instances rather complex ones. The other thing they found was that in creating these ego-states there also seemed to be that one distinct ego state that was aware of everything and seemed to possess more wisdom or emotional maturity. The reason I brought this up is because what you are talking about makes complete sense when you consider that hypnosis, dreaming, and meditation are very similar states of consciousness. It seems to make sense to me that if one could create (or maybe access states that are normally not accessible on a conscious level) using hypnosis, that one could also do this using meditation. Anyways, interesting stuff (at least I find it interesting). I wouldn't mind learning more about the approach if you could put up some links regarding it. Aaron

Hello Imortal4life, I didn't watch the youtube posts, sorry. What I can say is that after years of contemplation I believe that we make god in our image. I think that is inherently the problem with Western Spirituality, because in making it in our image, we oftentimes miss that perhaps we are not made in the image of God, but are actually God. Manitou has pointed this out in another thread and I actually have made several mentions of this idea, which is not entirely original since it comes from Vendanta Hinduism and may be up to 10,000 years old. Essentially the idea is that everything in existence is God and that only when we become completely aware of it can we escape this existence (which is oftentimes compared to a dream) and return to what is actually real. Anyways, again, we create god in our image because we cannot conceive of any type of intelligence or way of being that is alien to our own. Aaron