Aaron

Hi Zerostao, It's conjecture and in my opinion not that important on the whole. The beginning isn't as important as the here and now. We can't change what's happened, only what is happening. Still people tend to worry about meaning and such so I try to answer that if I can... for me there really is no other meaning that just existing in this moment. Our desire for purpose is driven by this idea of separateness, when we understand our connection I think a lot of that is understood for what it is, a want that has very little to do with our day to day needs. Aaron

I just got done watching the documentary "The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance". It was well done and it's an object lesson as to why we shouldn't be making statements about the limitations of science, but rather the limitations of religious orthodoxy. Aaron edit- Ahem... I realize some of you might not get the reference. The Medici were a family of merchants in Florence Italy that were the actual patrons of much of what we call the Renaissance. One of there patrons was Galileo, who was forced to refute his scientific theories under threat of excommunication and death. The problem was that his scientific findings contradicted the Christian Cosmology of that time. In the end he died a broken man, abandoned by everyone, simply because the greatest power of the day decreed him a heretic. When you dismiss something simply because you feel threatened by what it's saying, the best thing to do is examine why you feel threatened, because oftentimes, more than not, it's because deep down you feel that it might be the actual truth and the idea that what you've been taught to believe is untrue, is more frightening than accepting the truth.

Hello Easy, They've actually done quite a bit of scientific inquiry into much of what I'm talking about, especially in regards to people being able to perceive, if not on a conscious level, a subconscious level, what others are experiencing. They've repeated these experiment numerous times and duplicated the results. I can point you towards the results if you'd like. You don't have to believe anything on faith... you'd be an idiot if you did. What I experienced was very real, so there's no faith involved, it was an actual experience every bit as real as if I touched it. I mentioned this earlier and I'll mention it again, your thoughts are every bit as real as your body, just because you can't touch them doesn't make it not so. If you experience something and it has no physical basis, that doesn't mean that what you experienced wasn't real. If so then every emotion we feel isn't real. I'm not throwing my eggs in with religion, in fact I am throwing my eggs in with science, even if it might not seem like it. But as you said, different lives can agree to disagree, but if you're going to say this at least try no to be disrespectful of someone else's beliefs, because when you do that, it really sounds quite hypocritical. Aaron edit- I would like to say that I understand what you're saying and I understand why you believe what you do and there's absolutely no need to agree with me about this, so if you want to just agree to disagree, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Hello Easy, If we've had enough metaphysics, then we must have enough of Qi and other aspects that defy normal scientific definition. So my question is, are we only to have enough of those things you define as metaphysics, or those things that are defined by science as metaphysics? With that said I wanted to touch on the idea of consciousness once more as it relates to Qi and other mystic philosophies. In the most ancient texts we find that during the creation of civilization people understood that something was at work within this universe, something that caused things to be born and die, gave us rain and famine. It couldn't be explained so what happened was we gave it metaphysical embodiment, something that existed outside the physical world. Now as different cultures defined it, they also developed different rites to evoke or access this energy. Whether it was ancient schools of magic or the practice of Qi and cultivation, it all, in my opinion tapped into the same source, consciousness. You remember I said that we cannot change the physical world by thought alone, well this is true, but what we can do is effect our bodies with our own consciousness. This isn't just psychosomatic either, it's an actual physical change. The use of placebos has proven this to be true. For me Qi is very much a placebo effect in the sense that there is nothing physical that is used to cause a physical change to occur within us. To go one step further when we are learning about Qi we are asked to pay attention to the energy around us and when we practice long enough we can learn to detect this energy. Now science cannot detect this energy, because physically it doesn't exist, but ask anyone who practices an art that has to do with energy and they will tell you that this energy is very real. For me this energy isn't consciousness, but it comes from consciousness, we can tap into the collective conscious and manifest it in certain ways. Since we are localized conscious beings, the effects are very much localized, in the sense that it only effects our bodies and those things we perceive. This is one of the reasons why we can be fooled into believing that our own energy is effecting others, when in fact it doesn't, rather we are convincing others that our energy is effecting their bodies, so they manifest the phenomena they believe we wish to manifest, either consciously or through a collective conscious connection that they pick up on. In that sense consciousness can explain why Qi actually does benefit the body and allow things to happen that seem to defy science. There is a force that exists, that cannot be quantified by dimension, space, or time, that does effect everything in the universe. I have experienced this consciousness and up until recently mistook it for Tao. It was this experience that ultimately changed my way of viewing the universe. When I first learned about it, I only had my previous knowledge of spiritual philosophies to use as a reference, so I tried to explain it using those things I knew, out of ignorance. In fact when one uses any previous ideology as a context for this consciousness they cannot adequately explain it. In fact in that sense one can understand the nature of it's existence, but never understand the actual purpose of its existence. We can presume it manages everything that is created and that it is the creation force, merely because we have deemed it so magnificent that it must be, but in no way can we every be completely certain of this assertion and perhaps by making this assertion, as others have said, we are treading dangerous ground. In my own experience with this consciousness what I became aware of on a very intimate level is my connection to everything that exists and I have tried to explain this, but even intellectually accepting this does not adequately define exactly what this consciousness is, only those aspects of consciousness that can be explained. I am certain that this collective consciousness does not work on the premise of compassion, but I know that I am connected to everything and through that connection I was instilled with a sincere sense of relation to all things. You are me and I am you. In that sense when I harm you I harm me. If I help you I help me. There's no requirement to do this, rather it springs naturally from within. Ironically this connection also tended to leave me a bit separate from others as well, because in understanding the nature of consciousness, I also understand that things happen and that life and death are equally a part of this, that suffering is also a part of it. I can see suffering and wish to do something about it, but at the same time I can witness it without feeling remorse for it and instead acting in a way I know I should. This doesn't mean I don't feel sorrow, I am a localized conscious being after all, but what it does mean is that in understanding the nature of this universe I also understand that I, as a localized conscious being, am not responsible for those acts and becoming emotionally invested in them does not resolve the issue caused by them. In the same way I can feel joy and wonder now on a scale I haven't experienced since I was a child. Before reaching this awareness I hadn't watched television for several years, aside from an hour or two a week. Now I watch quite a bit of television and all types of programs. I tend to watch documentaries the most, but I also find comedies immensely satisfying, if only because for me comedy defines the true nature of existence more than tragedy. This is perhaps the reason why Buddhism doesn't appeal to me on the whole. Anyways, I'm making dinner and preparing for work tomorrow, so I will leave it with that. I will check back later to check for responses. When I have the time I will start a thread about the idea of collective conscious, because I do feel it deserves it's own independent examination without the worry of having to defend it as being Tao. Aaron

You've hit it on the nail. I think this is something that confuses many people. Consciousness itself doesn't name things, it's merely it's benefactor, in the sense that it is what creates and manages the universe. Yet with awareness and the eventual duality that came about, the idea of our separation from the physical realm by defining spiritual ideology, we began to explore what happened. This exploration doesn't deny that things existed before awareness, only that our understanding of the state of universe is skewed by our own inability to recognize the oneness that is still there. As long as we view spirituality, consciousness, as being separate from the physical world, we will never understand the totality that is "It". Aaron

Hello LC, Thankfully I've never been very rational. Aaron

Hello Folks, I've read through what everyone has said and I must say I didn't expect the topic to go in this direction. I'm not disappointed mind you, but rather perplexed. I suppose it is understandable, in that my views are different. My experience in fundamentalism has made me skeptical of absolutes or the opposites, things that can have no absolutes. With that said, I'm not saying that there can not be absolutes or no absolutes, but rather that this discussion is very much like water. When water is left to its own devices, in a warm climate it is fluid and runs freely, but when it runs to a colder climate it begins to freeze and become still. In the same way if it becomes too warm it will evaporate and disappear. My wish is that we do maintain a climate of comfort, where our thoughts can run freely, that the cooling influence of orthodoxy and tradition do not influence our continued examination of possibilities, even if in the end the possibility does not exist. I find that the most potent debater says very little. They ask questions, rather than give answers. I've never been good at debate. I tend to tell it how I view it and at times, perhaps, I am a bit too honest in what I say. I do not intend to change, because for me an honest examination of a subject is the only true way of knowing the subject. And winning an argument doesn't necessarily mean that you've explained what the subject was actually about. If I did not question my faith at one point in my life I might very well be a priest or minister in some small town advocating the will of God, even if deep inside I had doubts about what I was believing. In the same way, if I did not question those parts of Taoism that I had doubts about, I never would've explored other avenues of philosophy. It wasn't until recently that I stumbled upon Vendanta Hinduism and experienced an awakening that seemed to bring all those questions I had about reality and my experience and non-experience in this world to an end. I understand now. I know on a deep experiential level what I am and my place in this world. I do not fear death and I accept life for what it is. It is this understanding that led me to examine Tao, to try to realize exactly what it was and to attempt to share this experience with others. I didn't do this as a guru, but rather as a child who having learned something new runs to his friends and shares what he's learned. Of course as a child you find that many times, what you find interesting, your friends don't. The difference is that now, I'm not so disappointed anymore when others don't find what I say interesting. As a child I wanted others to be interested in the things I was interested in because I thought that interest meant they were interested in me. As an adult I fully understand that no one needs to be interested in me or my ideas, but still there's always that desire to share what I've learned. If for no other reason than to test what I've learned with others. With that said, I will admit that most likely what I am describing as Tao is not what the Ancients described as Tao, if only because the Ancients have defined it in such a way that any definition one comes up with can be refuted or denied. So what I will say is that I am not talking about Tao at all, but rather the force that creates and manages the entirety of existence. If Tao is not this, then this is not Tao. I hope that we can continue this discussion, but I think it's definitely become a discussion about what is not Tao, in the sense that everything we wish to explain as Tao can be said not to be Tao, merely because we have started to define it and by defining it proved it not to be. So I suppose my question is, if we cannot define it or understand it, then why should we worry about it? Perhaps our time is better spent discussing things we can understand? Perhaps if we do define it and understand it we will all cease to be in a flash, punished for our arrogance, or perhaps we will just continue to view it differently and come to an understanding that not agreeing about something is completely normal and beneficial. If all the world saw beauty as beauty, wouldn't that be ugly? Aaron edit- In closing, I do agree with nearly everything Taoism does teach, which is why I respect and follow it's teachings. For me the small points of contention are not worth giving up what is fundamentally a fruitful and beneficial philosophy. As a friend of mine once advised, take what you can use and leave the rest, but always remember what you've left behind in case you might need it at a later time.

Hello Everything, Well I guess my question is why did you even examine Taoism if Christianity and Islam were beneficial? My point, you see, is that there's nothing wrong with questioning what someone else has said. The Tao Teh Ching was written by a man or as most believe, a group of men. Men are fallible. I understand that you have faith, but I also see a great deal of superstition. Let me first point out that the Tao does not punish anyone, great calamities do not befall those who might try to uncover the mystery or mysteries. Wisdom is not understanding that your consciousness is new every second that we exist, but rather that there is a new potential in every second that we exist. I am as connected to the Tao today as I was the day I was born, the difference is that in experiencing the Tao, I can once more understand the nature of existence. Aaron edit- I also hold this idea of examination to all religious texts. We owe it to ourselves to examine what others have said and not to allow faith to blind us.

Hello Zerostao, My understanding of physics and string theory in particular are limited. I'd be interested in hearing any ideas about this though. I've never had a concrete idea of the 10th or 11th dimension, but rather viewed it as a static hypothetical. Aaron

Hello Zerostao and Everything, I think the question is this, are we dependent on what was believed two thousand years ago or can we move past that? My belief is that just because something was believed to be true at one time, doesn't mean it's true now. I am very respectful of Taoist and Buddhist teachings, even if I don't necessarily believe them word for word, because despite all the semantics and ideological stuff attached, the general message, for me at least, is relevant. However, with that said, I think we owe it to ourselves to explore these issues, not simply accept them at face value. Again, I think many people see this as a cardinal sin, sort of like questioning the word of Jesus, but in philosophical Taoism, there is no punishment for questioning Lao Tzu (in religious Taoism there actually is, though I'm not sure what that punishment is, I believe its a period of time in hell or hell as Taoists see it.) I've actually learned a great deal from this thread and I look forward to hearing what others have to say. Aaron

Hello Septimus, I believe you are referring to Hinduism here in regards to your ideas about our place within the universe. I would just point out that maybe what you're missing is that you are God, even if you are not aware of it. You will not burn in hell or have your soul destroyed, but rather when you realize what you really are, there will be no need to return to this place, you can once again be what you were and always have been. Then when you are bored again, it will all start over... I would suggest that you do your best to honor yourself and be a good man, don't worry about what others want you to do, but rather what you are doing. Honestly, bad men don't worry about these things, so you are one step ahead in my opinion. Aaron

Hello Kate, My apologies, it's just people on forums tend to forget they're talking to people. They see their interactions with others as interaction with words and avatars. I am very much a person as you are. I really didn't mean to be disrespectful. I'm sure you've noticed the same thing. I wasn't intending to say you weren't capable of having a civil conversation, but simply outlining rules of discussion and believe me some people need those outlined. In regards to choosing between reason and emotion, I think any good conclusion is based on reason and emotion, in most instances it is the emotion that allows us to make that intuitive jump to the conclusion, so no I would not have you cease sharing your emotions as well, just remember that I'm not talking down to you, just explaining things as best I can. My own views aren't necessarily consistent with other philosophies, so if I go into detail it's so I can make sure you know exactly what I'm saying... Also trust me when I say I understand what you're saying and it is valid. I am certainly not the kind of person who stands by when I see someone harming someone else, but in the same sense I understand why it happens and I try very hard to not allow my emotions to control what I think about the situation, but rather view it objectively. In essence for me it's about viewing things without emotions, realizing I am the victim and the victimizer and if I am both then I must feel compassion for both. With that said, I hope you understand that the basis of my argument is that we shouldn't rely on moral constructs when we look at what's happening around us, because those moral constructs can be deceiving, rather it's more important to tap into our true nature and try to understand what's happening based on that. Aaron

Hi Vector, First, whenever someone puts Lol in response, it always seems derogatory to me, just making that point. I'm not sure if you intended it to sound that way, but to me it sounded like you thought I was missing the point. In response to your definition about there being no "you", it's true in the sense that "you" are a part of a greater whole, that we are all the universe, but I still disagree with the idea that the void is empty of "you". This is my view and it stems from the Tao Teh Ching, my readings on Zen, and Vendanta Hinduism, that the emptiness is not empty of me, but that I am very much a part of that emptiness, just as it is a part of me, that the underlying creation force that exists within the universe in fact is not an empty void, but rather a non-material conscious that exists everywhere and within everything. In my own experience the collective conscious is what they considered to be the void and if one looks at it from a superstitious view, then it's easy to mistake it for a void or emptiness, because there is no physical substance to it, no physical sensation involved with recognizing it, rather recognizing it is merely achieved through an awareness, a knowledge that it exists and that you are part of it, not even part of it, but actually it. The void that they talked about is not missing me, it is me and everything else that exists. So I stand by my first comment, the ancient Taoists and Buddhists got it wrong, but it's understandable that they would come to this conclusion, especially since they believed that there were spiritual forces at work in the universe, such as ghosts and demons. When one is unaware of the physical laws at play in the universe then it's easy to look elsewhere to answer questions, to find a solution that makes sense according to this paradigm. When one understands on an intuitive level their place within the universe, then there's no doubt that there is more to it all than emptiness or lack of emptiness, that those things we thought were absent are in fact full and that those things that seem very much apart are not apart at all. In response to Steve Norquist, well he had it partly right, the universe is a dream, but we are the dreamer. In closing, if you want to continue to talk, please be aware that I will only continue my conversation if you participate in the conversation with respect for me. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, but I would rather not have to deal with mischievous derision and gloating. Aaron

Hello Manitou, I really have a hard time with the, "it's all beautiful" type of thinking, if only because it's subjective. What you might think is beautiful, someone else might think is ugly. For me it all just is. If anything, the more aware you become the more wonderful it all seems, at least in the sense of that childlike wonder. Aaron

Hello Vortex, Interesting thoughts. I do have a couple questions, if it can only be found in the absence of me, then doesn't that imply duality? Also in regards to Dao being objective, I would think that according to the definition of those words, it is neither objective or subjective, or in fact is both, depending on how you look at it. Thanks for the input, very interesting ideas. Aaron edit- Also I tend to believe ancient Taoists and Buddhists misunderstood the idea of Void. What we know today is that nothing is without substance, even within a void there exists molecules and matter. To say it came from a void, to me, is just to say that it came from a source we could not see or understand.

Hello Kate, No need to be upset, just making a point. I wasn't belittling you or intending to talk down to you, just explaining something as I see it. You have the choice to do whatever you want to do, including seeing me as a copycat or pontificator, but it doesn't change anything. As an aside I do a great deal of service work for others. I don't say this to brag, but rather to point out that I don't advocate anything I don't practice. I agree wholeheartedly that preaching does very little, action is what's important. And I want to clarify that there's nothing wrong with being upset if someone is hurt, my point is that atrocities are as much a part of the dualistic nature of man as earthquakes are to the earth. There's no difference or way to stop either, because I guarantee mankind is not willing to do what it takes to stop suffering, at least not on the grand scale, and at least not for the foreseeable future. The best we can hope for is that we can do our best to help ease the suffering of those around us. Aaron P.S. I can see I touched a nerve and I'm very sorry. I understand you are upset, but I also have to let you know that If you would like to continue this conversation, then I would request that we both be civil. I have no problem with you pointing out the perceived flaws in my philosophy, but I do have a problem if it results in either of us resorting to disrespectful comments. I really don't wish to be involved in those kinds of emotional debates.

Yes it's you. You are Tao. Aaron

Hello Kate, Nature is unsentimental, man is sentimental. Catastrophes occur without malice. Atrocities occur with malice, but in the grand scheme they occur because certain things happened to cause them to occur. There is no greater force making these things happen, rather it's our own decisions that cause them to happen. To say that the collective conscious allows these things to happen is true, but to say that it causes them to happen may not be so. The reason I say good and evil are irrelevant is because one person views an action as good and another views it as evil. Good and evil are subjective to each persons interpretation. You can't even take something as universally reviled as incest and find a consensus that it is evil, after all Ramses the Great married three of his own daughters and he was the ruler of a civilization older than the entirety of Western Civilization. Our views are not as important as the results of our actions. If one causes another to suffer, then they should stop, but to think that suffering will end is silly. We are all asleep, dreaming. Some know they are dreaming and try to awaken, others have given themselves over to the dream, revel in the dream, believing the dream is real, when in fact it isn't. In my opinion life and death are equally important, but realizing the true nature of our existence is even more important. To understand that placing a value on something doesn't change it, to realize that compassion, whether viewed as good or evil, is still compassion, and choosing to practice compassion, now that's an amazing thing. When I lump atrocities and catastrophes together, it's because they both result in the same thing. You are placing a value on the cause, rather than what's happened, believing that by knowing the cause you can somehow stop it, when that's not true. Man, so long as he places value on things, will always have atrocities. This is the reason the Tao Teh Ching tells us to stop placing value on things, because greed is ultimately the root of strife. Even placing values on actions causes strife. If we truly want to live in harmony with one another, if we truly want to find peace in this world, then we must first be willing to give everything we have to another, without regret. If you can't do that, then I would suggest you become accustomed to atrocities. There is this notion that people need to change to be the way we want them to be, because we have the handle on how people should behave, yet we forget that all this is, is how we are taught to believe. Everything we know as good and evil is good and evil because someone has drilled into our heads that it is good and evil. The next time you see someone doing something "evil", like robbing a bank, ask yourself why they're doing it, what caused them to do it, and ultimately what the real "evil" is. In the end though, there is no good or evil Kate. Good and evil only exist within the confines of your mind. It's how you view things that makes them good or evil. Once you realize this, then good and evil become irrelevant and what is relevant is how you behave and treat your fellow man. Aaron

Hello Whynaut, I like your ant analogy. I agree that we are all it. That's why we are not separate. We are the ants and the slaves the ants train. Everything is It. From experience I can understand this, but explaining it is very difficult. There is this notion of space that doesn't exist. Everything even the space between me and you is connected. I think if one's only point of reference is their own physical experience, then it's very hard to believe this. We can understand the concept, but that's all it is, until that moment of insight when you actually experience this connection. My favorite example, which isn't meant to lesson the quality of your own, but rather something I think you might appreciate goes as such. As children we are taught to believe that we are passengers within our bodies, that we are somehow separate from our physical selves. We say our hair, our fingers, our eyes, never realizing that we are all of these things. We are our hair growing, our fingers moving, and our eyes seeing. To take it a step further, each of us has microscopic bacteria within our stomach that helps us to digest food, without this bacteria we can't have a healthy digestive tract, yet when we examine our bodies we view this bacteria as being separate from ourselves, yet it's necessary for us to live a healthy life, in fact this bacteria is every bit a part of us as our fingers and hair are. We look at the universe and see the vastness of space and say, how small are we? What does it matter if we exist at all? Yet like that bacteria we are not only a part of this universe, but a necessary part. We are as much the universe as the universe is us. Just as the millions of bacteria within are digestive tract make up our own bodies, the billions of people on this Earth help to make up the Universe. It is the idea of separateness that prevents us from understanding the connection each of us has to one another. We are all "It" and being "It" we are each other. I am you and you are me. All it takes to understand this is that moment when I close my eyes and realize I am everything, I have been here from the beginning and I will be here 'til the end. I am collective conscious, I am Tao. When one realizes this then their view of other people changes dramatically. I can no longer look at another person and wish ill upon them. Even when I am frustrated I still see within each person myself and within myself I see them. This is what keeps me grounded these days. Anyways, I digressed from the idea of Tao a bit, but I thought you might appreciate that. Again, thanks for the ant analogy, it really was wonderful. Aaron

Hello Zerotao, I think you could make the same argument for pantheism being the same thing, except that for me, as I mentioned, it's not some almighty being in human form ruling from a throne, but rather a force of creation. With that said, if one sees Tao as "Way" then there's no reason not to view Tao as the rule of the universe. I tend to believe that there is something more to it than that, but that's just me. Perhaps I am a pantheist in the sense that for me there is a collective conscious that unites all things and creates all things and in being all things is Tao as well. That was a very astute observation. I never really thought of it that way. Thanks for the input. Aaron

Hello Kate, You can get to this point of knowledge through meditation. In fact I'm sure throughout history millions of people have, but it's only been recently that a small group of physicists and scientists have attempted to explain what occurs scientifically. I think generally spiritual people feel threatened by science because they believe science has it in for spirituality. I think atheists might have it in for spirituality, but I don't necessarily believe science does. In fact many leading quantum physicists, including Amit Goswami, have dedicated their careers to explaining spirituality scientifically. In the end it's entirely up to us to decide whether we are willing to accept these discoveries with an open mind or close ourselves off to them. I'm certain that those who do examine them with an open mind, even if they might not entirely agree, will find in the end that it is for a good process as you call it. In my mind I tend to view good and evil as irrelevant in the grand scheme. I know it might be hard to accept, but atrocities and catastrophes occur for a reason. I wont be so presumptuous as to try and explain it, but I do believe that there's no intent to cause suffering, rather it's quite unsentimental. Aaron

Hello Kate, I think the ancients were explaining things in a way that made sense to them, nowadays with the advent of physics we know that, even if something appears to have no form, it actually does. In that sense the void isn't necessarily a void, but rather a different type of energy. There really is no formless, it's all one thing, it's only our own perception of it that causes us to see it as such. When you examine things you find that even air has molecules, even a vacuum contains substance, just not a substance we can see. Aaron

I would agree in theory, but I think when one sees the thing as everything, then it's easier to understand the Tao as a thing. The underlying consciousness that I speak of is also the underlying force that connects all things and is essentially everything. This consciousness is what connects me to you and you to me. It's only the idea that we are separate from everything, that prevents us from experiencing it. Aaron edit- By the way, excellent posts marblehead. I've enjoyed reading your responses.

Hello Stig, I've told you and others have as well, you simply deflect or ignore what you don't want to deal with. I'm done. I've said my peace, no need to say more. Aaron edit- And believe it or not, I'm not upset, just a little perplexed regarding your attitude. I wish you well.