Aaron

Hello Bodyofflight, I will not be responding to your comments. You show a clear disregard for other people's opinions and most of what you say is purely conjecture, with no basis on fact, or in my opinion, experience. Although you claim spiritual maturity, you have handled yourself on this forum in a very immature way. When you can stop insulting others and making comments with the intention of attracting attention or getting a rise out of people, I will consider talking with you. Peace be with you, Aaron

Hello manitou, I'm very glad to hear Joe's doing fine. In regards to triangulation, sychronicity, etc. I would say that oftentimes, for me, synchronicity is a normal occurrence, it is only when I become more aware of the similarities that I start to pay attention to them. Best of health and love to you both. Aaron

Hello Little 1, I am the one that posted those comments, so I wanted to elaborate a bit about them. First I don't agree with your opinions regarding the way of humans, sages, perverts, and wackos. First using the word nurturing may not actually describe what is going on in regards to sex and sexuality. There is a common misconception that sexual deviancy is about sex, when most researchers now agree that sexual deviancy is closely linked to control, in this particular instance the control of people. The use of paraphilia is the way that people derive control through certain stimulus. Whether it's a foot fetish, pedophilia, or bestiality, ultimately it's not really about sex, but rather a desire to control others that is founded on deep seeded, oftentimes unconscious, feelings of inadequacy commonly associated with neglect or abuse in childhood. In particular, if a child felt helpless during a certain situation, especially during adolescence, they may later associate that situation with sex. The fact that these desires are carried out sexually, should not detract from what is actually going on. Someone who is molesting children may be sexually attracted to children, but that does not mean that the driving force behind their actions is simply that attraction. Rather it is the desire to gain control, to feel as if they have control, that causes them to perpetuate their abuse. One thing to keep in mind is that as a person suffering from a sexual deviancy grows older their ability to control their urges regarding those impulses diminishes. Using the model of pedophiles for instance, most pedophiles (that end up molesting children) will have molested their first victim by their mid to late twenties. Of course where it gets tricky is the definition of pedophiles, because not everyone that molests a child is a pedophile. Remember I said that some people who become celibate will act out in a deviant way, well that happens because stress can lower the impulse control of a person, in particular depression, anxiety, or major life traumas are often the catalyst that causes someone who is not necessarily a pedophile to actually abuse a child. Many times this is accompanied with alcohol or drug abuse, but just as often it happens without any drugs involved. The apparent lack of control that these people feel causes them to act out in a way that allows them to control others. Now in nearly all of the incidents where people act out in this way sexually, what one finds is that these people were not engaging in normal sexual behavior prior to the incident, i.e. they were having marital problems, relationship problems, or were celibate. This is one of the reason why I suggest that normal sexual release is not only healthy, but necessary. Because of the important part that sex plays in our lives, when we feel stress, but have no outlet for these desires and impulses, then we are more likely to engage in behavior that is deviant, whether it be molesting children or not listening when the girl we are with says "no". Many people who have engaged in these acts never thought they were capable of it before it happened. Now, although I am not an expert, I did work as a case manager monitoring sexual offenders for a few years. What I learned is only the tip of the iceberg regarding sexual deviancy, in particular violent and dangerous repeat offenders. What I can tell you is that in nearly every case once one perpetuates this form of abuse they have a very high chance of repeating the offense. It's almost like a drug addict taking their first hit. Once they've gotten that first high, they start chasing it over and over. Anyways I think I've elaborated enough on that, my point is that nurturing has nothing to do with what's happening here, rather it's the lack of nurturing that causes people to become deviant. In the case of the deviants that actually enter these celibate institutions, it's often done because they feel that it's the only way for them to gain control over these urges. Very few pedophile priests, for instance, entered the priesthood to have access to children, rather they entered under the hopes that somehow the priesthood would remove their impulses to harm children. When this doesn't happen, their willpower slowly fades and they inevitably end up placing themselves in positions where they have access to children. This is the overwhelming problem with celibacy, most normal men (and women) do not look at celibacy as an option. Normal men are highly unlikely to enter into an institution that will deprive them of one of the things they enjoy most in life. When they do enter these institutions, what happens in many instances is that as they repress their sexual urges for longer and longer periods of time, what can eventually happen is what I explained before, they encounter a stressful times in their life and act out sexually, by exerting control over someone else. Again I didn't intend to go into this level of depth, so I will leave it here and just say, celibacy is not natural under any condition and practicing celibacy, in my opinion, puts one in more danger than not. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Apech, I agree. I don't think chapter tells us that, ultimately, people are more drawn to the spiritual, things like peace, well-being, and safety, than they are to material goods. I think many would contradict this statement in modern times, but I feel it still applies. Aaron

I just watched "The Pyramid Code" and one of the episodes had to do with ley lines (the lines of energy that crisscross the Earth). It seems like the Egyptians had a deep understanding of how ley lines worked and built nearly all of their religious and spiritual complexes along powerful lines or nexuses. Some people have reported feeling strange things while visiting these sites, including vibrations and such. I know a lot of other ancient sites are built on ley line nexuses as well, including Stonehenge, the ancient Mayan and Incan pyramids, to name a few. There are numerous books about American sites as well, if you're interested. Chances are, if you do a little research you'll find one near you.

Hello Mewtwo, I know I'm not an "old timer", I've only been around for a little over a year, but I believe what's occurring is beneficial to the community. As Apech has already said, no one is being banned for being controversial, but rather because they are insulting other members or purposefully attempting to cause discord with the community. I feel that the current trend towards more civil discussions will not only result in more compassion between members, but also much deeper discussions regarding the topics. Nothing sidetracks a discussion like personal insults directed at other members. Aaron

This topic was moved because it violated the Tao Teh Ching posting guidelines. The Tao Teh Ching subforum requires that the post pertain to the texts listed in the subforum FAQ. Aaron

Hello Mewtwo, I have asperger's syndrome, (I've never actually admitted it to any of my family or friend's since being diagnosed because of the stigma) so you're not the only one here who is autistic. My particular "interest" is spirituality (for many years it was literature and I was considered a literary prodigy, even at a young age). I've found that my in-depth study of various spiritual practices has helped me with some of my social issues immensely. If you would like to talk, send me a tell. Aaron

Hello Non, Lets take this from another perspective. I feel you aren't entirely sold on celibacy. You say, "why not? I can't get sex anyways." Well what kind of reason is that? I don't practice Qigong, but I know people who do and I've had conversations about this with them. The practice of semen retention and celibacy are all part of the very highest level of Qigong. From what I've been told, doing these practices without the requisite experience can be detrimental, not beneficial. I would suggest, if you are undertaking this practice without consulting an advanced teacher, that you should consult a teacher about this. Forums are all and good, but you have no way of knowing who knows what. It's the same as trying to learn advanced meditation techniques from a book, you may get the gist of it, but without having someone to teach you, it can lead to bad things, nightmares, psychosis, etc. The psychiatric community recognizes that many people do develop psychosis from Qigong practice. I'm telling you this to scare you, and I'll admit it, because I'd rather scare you than see you harm yourself. Even if you don't agree with me regarding this, I think with your low-self esteem and issues regarding sex, that perhaps you might want to address these issues before continuing this form of practice. If you are not emotionally balanced, then the last thing you need to do is perform an intense practice that requires strict and precise emotional balance. More than one person has jumped in the water, thinking they can swim to the other side and found out too late that they can't. Take a step back, be sure of your own skill and only do what you KNOW you can do. That's the last I'll say about it, because you seem to have your mind made up, but I hope you might consider what I've told you. Aaron

Morning wood has less to do with repressed or unconscious sexual desire, then it does the retention of urine. It's easier to hold it in if you have an erection. I wouldn't worry so much about morning wood, but as others have said, understand your normal and natural urges. There is nothing natural about celibacy, just check with the holy orders that practice it. Where there is celibacy, normally there is a high degree of deviancy, regardless of the religions institution. What the psychiatric community is finding is that many of the people that choose to go into religious orders that practice celibacy, do so because they suffer from some kind of deviation that causes them guilt and they believe that by joining the order that it will remove or help them to control those deviant impulses. I want to clarify that not all people who practice celibacy are deviant, but one thing to keep in mind is that even those people who go into these institutions without suffering from a deviancy, will often tend to fall into deviant behavior later on. What this tells me is that frequent sexual release is not only normal, but healthy physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Aaron

Hello Otis, I think what's being advocated here is compassion. What I think is being advocated is the abolishment of ideas under the guise that ideas are bad. Even if we give up stories, ideas, how are we supposed to exist? Can we go day to day without any concept of what should or shouldn't be done. Te may arise from Tao, but it doesn't mean that something doesn't cause it to arise. If we use compassion as an example, the only way we really know what Te is, is by understanding what it isn't. I think one line from the Tao Te Ching can dismiss most of this, the line that states, "If all the world saw good as good, that in itself would be evil." If one advocates that everything is evil, that doesn't mean that believing that is good. Aaron

Hello Ulises, I think what we're missing is the fact that many religions have done exactly what's said here, try to pin down, for the lack of a better word, the source, and only marginally been successful. My point, which Kate has also made, is that they have been marginally successful and by understanding what they've learned, I can learn from that. That is why I believe it's necessary to be skeptical, but not write everything off. If you are advocating giving up our beliefs and reexamining them, then that I can agree with, but to give them all up and say that nothing is true is, in my opinion, not only wrong, but a mistake. To do this is to recreate the mistakes already made, rather than learn from them. Aaron edit- I just thought of a good analogy... If someone has already journeyed to a destination that you wish to visit, is it not wise to ask them how they got there and what it's like? By asking this question, one can make their own decision regarding which path to take and also whether the journey is worth making. To believe someone else's journey was false from the beginning, seems to me like the archaeologists who are willing to say Egypt was capable of great achievements, but because those achievements don't measure up to our current perception of what an achievement is, still believe them to be less advanced than our own civilization.

I must point out that I have never run into this idea prior to coming to the Tao Bums forum, but it seems that there is a debate as to whether the Sages mentioned in the Tao Teh Ching were actual practicioners of martial arts. My own opinion is that they weren't and I believe that chapter 15 is an excellent point of reference for arguing against that idea. With that said, if anyone has a difference of opinion, I would like to hear it, especially if they can provide evidence to support that opinion. On another level, I think this relates to whether or not there is a justification for martial study under the pretext of cultivating Tao. In regards to this, I would say that modern martial arts has less to do with the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu, than it does the I-ching and other folk traditions practiced in Ancient China. Aaron

Hello Ulises, I was just stating an observation. Most cults, when they indoctrinate others first try to foster a sense of community, making the potential inductee feel closer to the group, then try to break down the person's previous belief systems, so that they are more open to new beliefs, and finally indoctrinate the person into a new belief system that is "true" and correct. As a layman I could see where this whole idea could easily be used to facilitate a cult environment, not unlike certain other religions I wont mention because of there propensity for lawsuits. Telling people to give up everything they know is like telling someone that everything they know is wrong and honestly how can one assume that. Rational skepticism is understandable, but denying everything as false isn't. Also the quote that you posted here is very much in line with Zen and Buddhist thinking. With that said, if it works for you, great, but I still think that it's important to examine stories, especially if those stories have a great deal of history surrounding them. In my own experience if I hadn't unintentionally been exposed to Hinduism (a religion I had many preconceptions about) without really knowing that I was being exposed, I would never had achieved the degree of awareness that I enjoy today. Perhaps it's not enlightened awareness, but nonetheless it's better than where I was at before. Aaron

Hello folks, I just wanted to point out that I started this thread about six months ago in response to some dialogue that was going on in the forum regarding martial arts and Taoism. I was interested in the question from a scholarly perspective. As someone has already mentioned, the question really doesn't matter, regardless of the answer. In the end, Lao Tzu (whether he was a fictional character or real person) probably did have some knowledge of martial practices, being that most able bodied men were drafted into martial service during the warring states faction (from my understanding). I think what fascinated me about the question was how much did Qigong and martial arts actually influence the early Taoist thinkers. The answer is probably a great deal. Anyways, thanks for the responses. I was surprised to see this rather ancient thread (by forum standards) bumped after such a long time, but everything happens for a reason I suppose. Aaron

Hello Manitou, Although I agree with your opinion that understanding one's self helps one to understand others much better, I'm not sold on the notion that it's what's being said here. For me they are being presented as two separate ideas. The man who knows people is intelligent, The man who knows himself is truly wise... or something like that. That doesn't mean that the man who knows himself doesn't know other people, but rather that the more important thing is to know yourself. Clearly a lesson the psychological community has chosen to ignore... ... joking there. Aaron edit- the joke of course is that the psychological community chooses to study others in the pursuit of understanding how the human mind works, whereas they would probably be better served by studying themselves.

I used to know a doctor that was a pain management specialist that refused to prescribe opiates. I'm not sure what alternatives he used, but he was really anti-opiates or anything else that held a high risk for addiction. Believe it or not, he had quite a healthy practice. Despite what the medical community is led to believe, a large number of people are not interested in taking opiates and such and would much rather manage their pain in ways that do not have the potential risk of addiction and abuse. In regards to pain, I think that's been addressed quite well. For those who have suffered an injury or procedure that requires pain management, if you feel uncomfortable taking opiates or are unsure of what you are taking, ask your doctor. Don't be afraid to research the drugs you take on your own as well. Oftentimes doctors are reticent to explain all the side effects associated with certain prescription drugs. Lastly, the abuse of prescription narcotics is a billion dollar industry, so there's no wonder that most of the measures taken to curtail it seem to only do minimal good. Spend a billion dollars to stop illegal drug cartels, but spend a million or so to try and prevent the abuse of illegal drugs that are earning billions for our own companies. Do I really need to say more? I guess I'm feeling political today. Aaron

mispost... Aaron

Hello Simplejack, Thank you for sharing your experience with Buddhism. I have studied some of the Zen texts and read a few books about Buddhism, so I do know some of the basics. Samsara, the four noble truths, and the eight fold path, to me, are dogma. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't pursue them if they feel the need, but I feel that it's not needed, nor necessary. I do believe in reincarnation, mind you, just not the Karmic and Dharmic cycles that perpetuate Buddhist mythology. With that said, no religion has the corner on "True" enlightenment or awareness (or spiritual experience). In fact I think most tend to result in the very opposite. The organized structure is meant to derive a very singular experience, and in experiencing that singular experience, the student is not even aware that it is not the only thing one needs to experience. In regards to the Taoist texts regarding attachment, what I would remind you is that most of this is greatly influenced by Buddhist thought. In fact most Taoist teachings aren't strictly Taoist, but really a hybrid of Confucianism, Traditional Chinese folklore, and Buddhism. Keeping that in mind, it makes complete sense that the orthodox Taoist belief would be so similar to the Buddhist beliefs. Don't let this give you the wrong impression about me, I like Buddhists mind you. I've never had any (offline) evangelize about Buddhism to me. Most feel, as I do, that it's not needed. Buddhism isn't needed. Christianity isn't needed. Moralism isn't needed. In my own experience what is needed is an awareness of one's place within reality. If they can achieve that, then everything else will simply fall along the wayside. We are only I, no body, no mind, just I. When you truly understand this, then you have no need of enlightenment. I hope life finds you well. Aaron

Hello Simplejack, I'm not a buddhist, nor do I believe in samsara or the need to drop attachments. In my own opinion the Tao is actually encouraging us to become more attached rather than unattached. In my own experience of spiritual "awakening" I did not experience a cessation of emotion, but rather an understanding of the nature of emotion. When one begins to understand him or herself, what they realize is that there is a lot of needless emotion that serves no purpose. Worry, sorrow, guilt to name a few. Now that's not to say there aren't times when these emotions do serve a purpose, but rather that you begin to recognize when they are not necessary. I'm sure Buddhist enlightenment is grand and ecstatic (this isn't sarcasm), but my own experience regarding "enlightenment", or if you'd rather, "awakening" is of the Vendanta variety and it is less than spectacular, in fact it seemed quite ordinary, as the world itself still does. Anyways, have a good one. Aaron edit- Also I'm not sure where you got the idea I was encouraging people to be endlessly joyous, or that it's even possible to be endlessly joyous, rather I was explaining that suffering was as necessary as joy, in fact you can't have one without the other. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Hello Non, I wanted to get back to your original post and make some points I think are pertinent to what you're experiencing. First, I wanted to look at the question, "Is life the epitome of suffering?" I think that the most important thing to take notice of is the fact that you use the world "life". I'm assuming that you are not using this word in the sense of life being the process of living, but rather the experience of living. In that sense, if you are asking is the experience of living just the epitome of suffering, I would have to say no. In my own experience of living I've found that life is not merely suffering, rather suffering is a part of it. I know the Buddhists will tell you about Samsara, but I've never bought into that. The fact is suffering cannot exist without joy, rather it is the fact that suffering is a negative experience that causes us to place more emphasis on it than we do joy. I could ask the question, "is life just the epitome of joy?" And the answer could be true. The fact is life is just life. You experience pain and suffering in life. You must experience pain and suffering, because without it you can't experience bliss and joy. With that said, I will offer you a few pearls of wisdom that I've been fortunate enough to have learned from others. 1) The best thing to do when you are feeling overwhelmed, depressed, or sorrow is to help someone out who is less fortunate than you. Wallowing in misery wont help misery to disappear. 2) When you are feeling a certain emotion, try to figure out the root of why you are feeling it, not just the surface root, i.e. "my girlfriend left me" but the real root, the thing that caused you to fall into this emotional roller coaster in the first place. Why does this abandonment hurt so much? What is the cause of your feeling of abandonment? 3) This too shall pass. Simpy put, time heals all wounds. 4) Life is not what you make it. Life is the experience of living. You can try your hardest to succeed but still fail. So rather than try to succeed or worry about failure, just do it, live it, and let it be what it is. I'm sensing that you are still a young man, so keep this in mind, this is only the beginning, you have your whole life to live, so don't think that what's happening now is the end, but rather that this moment you're living in right now is just the beginning. Finally, don't fall into this trap of thinking life is the epitome of suffering, rather look at life as the link between you and everything else that exists. Aaron

Hello Snowmonki, Authenticity exists just as facts, falsehoods, and everything in between exists and doesn't exist. See the problem is that simply saying "such and such doesn't exist" doesn't make it so. The mere fact that I am discussing the matter of authenticity with you means it exists. If you want to debate whether or not it is relative, now that's something else entirely, but I can assure you that it does exist, regardless of whether you believe it does or not. It's sort of like the man who didn't believe France existed because he'd never been there. Anyways, I would like to remind you that capitals are most often used in forums and in general chat as a sign that one person is yelling at another. The general rule is that when you want to place extra emphasis on something you use bold print to show that. Anyways, I do find you responses interesting and I'm positive you're on the right track. Aaron

There has been a recurring theme running through the forums lately, one that talks about our need to explain and understand things. The basic consensus seems to be that the only real truth is the truth that we come up with, but I'm wondering how this works? I am loath to tell others how to live their lives, really I am, but I also feel compelled to address this particular idea that truth, real truth can only come from within. The idea that the only real expression of reality is the reality that we experience has been debated by much more intelligent men then me, so I wont even go there, rather what I want to address is this notion of truth. The first question that comes to mind is, what is truth? That's the sticky part here, because when we advocate things like, come up with your own truth or any truth but the truth that you experience is false, what we're failing to address is the fact that just because someone is telling you something is true, doesn't mean that it isn't. The notion that someone's own experience lacks merit because you didn't experience it seems to be like saying that water doesn't exist until you feel it and touch it. That may seem illogical, but keep in mind that for an infant the world works very much like that. If an infant cannot experience something through one of their senses, they seem to forget that it ever existed, and for them it doesn't seem to exist anymore. Perhaps this is where this notion comes in, a sort or primordial memory of our original nature, our ability to let things go and accept reality for what it is in this instance. In that sense the idea of truth, of giving up others truths and defining it for yourself makes sense, but we must also remember that with age comes wisdom and knowledge, knowledge that things do exist, even if we do not experience them in this moment. To completely give up on others expression of wisdom, for me, is quite like saying, nothing good has ever come of this world, so look for the good within you. Well that's fine and good, but if nothing good has come of this world, then how do you define what is within you? If you cease to compare things, give up good and bad, right and wrong, then what do you use as a means of understanding how we should behave? This idea, the idea of natural action, or perhaps a better description would be natural thought, seems to be based on the premise of an innate altruism that may not exist. Remember that mankind has been on this world for 400,000 years or more, and every record that we find of human existence seems to point towards the idea that these things we believe are recent occurrences in the human psyche are in fact something that's been there all along. This notion of our inner self being separate from others, is necessary for us to function as social creatures. In fact this idea of separateness is not only present in human beings, but also gorillas and other animals. It's a natural awareness that every living thing seems to become aware of. This notion of separateness may seem to hinder us spiritually, but in fact it's the one binding force that has helped humanity to survive. It's our ability to learn, not only from our experiences, but also from each other that allows us to flourish, even to the point of destroying the very world we live in. It's that ability that is quite amazing and in fact quite natural. When we begin to question everything that we've been taught, when we're told that the truth is subjective, so we should just give up everything that we've been told is true, then what we are left with, is not only a blank slate, but a slate that can never exist. A simple fact is that you cannot erase your experiences, trust me I've tried, they stick with you and come out when you least expect them to. What I believe is most important isn't the idea that religion and philosophy is false, but rather that we have the ability to examine those things and decide for ourselves. Understanding the true nature of existence doesn't arise from self imposed ignorance, but rather an innate understanding of one's self and in that understanding seeing the connection that most people miss. When you see this connection, not only the societal connection, the ego self connection, but also the intricate place we exist within the whole, then it is becomes much easier to understand exactly why truth is subjective, but also why truth is necessity. If you raise your child without any stories, without any history, what you are doing is robbing them of an essential aspect of human existence. In the same way, if you tell someone to give up truths and come to their own conclusions, the fact is that can't be achieved, rather what will happen is that the person will begin to examine these truths and compare them to their own experience and come to their own conclusion. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but the idea that one "needs" to do this is absurd. The truth, the real truth, the un-subjective truth, doesn't exist. What we have instead is the experiential truth, which says that the truth is what we feel most comfortable with. Now keep in mind, what I'm talking about isn't Te or Virtue, but rather philosophies and ideologies. The idea that these things somehow detract from our ability to truly (there's that word again) experience reality for what it is. Perhaps in a perfect world we'd all be able to act in accord with the Tao and Te and through this action understand the innate nature within us. The question of course is, if one does not know how to get back to that state, how will they be able to achieve it if they completely give up everything they've been taught and cease to trust anything that anyone has told them? Perhaps what we should be doing is meeting halfway, understanding the true nature of "truth" and in understanding that nature, testing these "truths" rather than blindly accepting them. Rather than continue what would be a lengthy discussion on this topic, I will stop here and see how others feel about this. I hope everyone is doing well. Aaron

Hello Otis, I'm not disagreeing with what you have said, I'm just trying to point out that it's not necessary, that in the end it's no more valid than the woman who believes the image of Christ has appeared in her scrambled eggs. The fact that an image appeared doesn't detract from the fact that they are scrambled eggs. In the same way the idea that eggs without images are somehow not religious and thus more edible isn't quite true either. In the end the truth does not come from emptying one's self (imo) but rather from examining what is within. I forget who said it, but God really is within us. Truth doesn't exist outside of our head. Most people understand that there really are no absolutes, but rather measures by which we expect things to happen. In my own experience examining various religions actually did more good than harm. Trying to understand much of the esoteric ideas involved in understanding the nature of the world is incredibly difficult when you're being guided by someone who is already knowledgeable, the idea of trying to figure it out solely on your own is mind boggling. So for me truth is subjective and unnecessary, but inevitably can't be escaped, at least not for the majority of people on the face of this earth. Aaron edit- And I know you weren't evangelizing, I was just using that as an illustration. If you feel the need to, I'm always here. I'm sure your testimony will be much more interesting to hear.

Hello Snowmonki, I wasn't actually trying to cause a drift towards discussing other mythologies, I'm not sure where you got that from. My point was that your question, whether using the colloquial or literal definition of Myth was a bit ambiguous. In regards to your question, why is any of this important? Does it really matter if Tai Chi originated with Taoism, or if the I-Ching was a Taoist text? I'm not saying this to be difficult, because at one time I did think it was important, but now I see it more as a means of trying to define authenticity, when in fact authenticity is very much a subjective measure. I think 90% of the people on this board can answer your questions, but perhaps the answer doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not these texts and ideas hold merit today. Anyways, I'll leave you to your discussion and I hope you find your answers. Aaron