Aaron

Hello folks, Here's the problem with religion, that people have problems with religion. If you pay attention to the Tao Teh Ching it talks about this, but also advises you on how to handle religion. Mind your own business, worry about what you're doing and not what others are doing. If you think religion is bad, that's your opinion, but if you want to really change the world, then change it by being a better person. If you want to teach others how to live a better life, then start by living a better life. The Sage teaches by his actions, not words. Aaron

It's about yin and yang. Everyone has both, regardless of gender. Even then, who says one has to practice sex in order to cultivate Qi? Sex is an intimate and enjoyable process. It's sole purpose isn't to propagate life or cultivate Qi. (Even with this said, I think most would agree, if one wishes to cultivate Qi, ideally it should be practiced with a man and woman.) As an aside, I think most Taoist texts are intentionally ambiguous about this topic. The idea is that whatever one does in the privacy of their own homes is entirely up to them, so long as it remains in the privacy of their homes (harmonious living and all that). This is also the reason there aren't (and never were) a large number of openly gay men or women in China compared to western civilization. Homosexuality was there, it was just never openly practiced, nor vehemently persecuted (aside from the cultural revolution). Aaron

He joined a day before making this post. Chose a name that he thought was appropriate, but in fact is horribly racist (only someone incredibly ignorant would choose this kind of nick). Then he made his bigoted rant in the hopes of drumming up trouble. Yes he's for real, but the reality is he's not a Taoist and his only reason for coming here was to try to stir up hate. Aaron

Lately there's been much debate about the nature of virtue, mostly in response to Te, or as some like to call it, High Virtue, as opposed to Low Virtue, which is generally considered an action that is based on high moral standards. Some may assume that virtue is viewed differently by Western Philosophers than it is Eastern Philosophers, but this would be a mistake, especially when one examines the idea of High Virtue as it is presented in Christian Mysticism. Some examples of High Virtue can be seen in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross. St. John of the Cross in particular stated that upon reaching the highest level of spiritual union, the union of one with God, that their actions were changed and that they ceased to behave virtuously because it was morally upright and rather behaved virtuously out of a love for God. The poem "The Dark Night of the Soul" and subsequent treatise, elaborate upon this and in particular explains the spiritual journey one undertakes when one seeks to become unified with God. St. John pointed out that most would never achieve the ultimate spiritual union of man and God, at least not in this lifetime, but that some did. The amazing thing that can be found, not only in the poem, but also the description of the journey taken, is that it mirrors much of what is taught in other 'mystical' traditions, including Sufism, Buddhism, and Taoism. At the end of this journey one understands that God and man are one or that nothing is really separate from anything, since unification with God is also unification with everything in existence. As I stated in the beginning, this is about High Virtue, and although this may seem to be going astray, the point is that in all of these traditions High Virtue is not achieved through physical or mental effort, but only after experiencing the true nature of reality, whether it is the unification of the soul with God or understanding impermanence and the nature of the self. Another similarity that is found is that the path to this enlightenment is often fraught with moral dilemmas and questions of authenticity. The closer we come to the point of awareness, the more questions we have about whether enlightenment can be achieved, and whether or not there is a purpose to anything at all. This rarely results in a total abandonment of the spiritual journey, but rather results in a stronger conviction as one passes through this phase, which by the way has been called the "dark night" because of St. John's description of this stage in his poem and treatise. The fact that enlightenment is achieved by various traditions and that the stages, regardless of the religious and philosophical ideology, are nearly identical, seems to point to the notion that enlightenment isn't dependent upon a religious or philosophical ideology at all, but rather an experience that ultimately leads to awareness. If one examines those people who have achieved enlightenment one finds, that regardless of their religious background, each shares certain characteristics; they practiced deep contemplation or meditation, developed an emotional detachment from the world, had a familiarity with those around them on an intimate level, and also were able to live harmoniously with those around them, even if their ideas may not be accepted by the majority. Since I've been prone to writing lengthy threads, I will stop here, and close simply by stating that High Virtue as it's understood by most spiritual traditions is not something that can be practiced but rather arises from a deeper experiential awareness. It is not something that requires motivation, but rather is a natural action that is a result of understanding ones connection to others. Aaron edit- The most interesting lesson that I've learned from this, is that our concepts of truth are always in question, that regardless of what religious or philosophical tradition we follow, if our ultimate goal is to understand our place within this universe, we will achieve it if we are diligent and have faith that an answer does exist.

Hello folks, My original point was that High Virtue, what some might call Te, is something that is accepted in many different religions. With that said, it also seems to be commonly agreed upon that if one is incapable of behaving virtuously (as in low or worldly virtue) then the chances they'll ever become aware of high virtue are slim. The fact is many of the actions that are found in low virtue are also products of High Virtue. If one is incapable of performing those actions out of low virtue, then the chances they'll be able to achieve High Virtue are again, very slim indeed. This is my own opinion as well. Aaron

Manitou has been kind enough to begin posting the Nei-Yeh over in the Tao Teh Ching section of The Tao Bums Forum. For those who might not know, it's one of the oldest Taoists texts concerning Qi practices. If you're interested in Tai Chi or Qigong, it's really a great text to read. It will be posted by chapters for discussion. Aaron

Hello The Way is Virtue, You are absolutely right, but what you're talking about is the view of Te as it's understood by Religious Taoists. I tend to be a 21st Century Neo-Taoist, in the sense that I don't necessarily believe that there is a Celestial Court, or that numerology is a valid science, or that you can use the I-Ching to foretell the future, or that Te is necessarily something that can be explained very well, but rather is experienced. For me the Tao Teh Ching and Chuang Tzu are enough. With that said, thank you for adding the religious Taoist view, because it does clearly show the similarities of religions. In particular that religions tend to proscribe right and wrong to actions. This isn't bad, in fact it prevents societies from being chaotic (towards themselves for the most part). I also tend to believe that what is practiced as Taoism today has little to do with the Tao Teh Ching and more to do with the cultural evolution of China, including Buddhism and Confucianism, but also the folk traditions that have been passed down. But again, we've discussed this a few times before, so you know my view, and there's no need to elaborate any further here. Thank you for joining the discussion. Aaron

In order to understand the results of these studies, one must also understand the nature of religion and it's purpose for society, be it Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam. Religions are indeed pro-social institutions in that they help society to define behaviors that are the norm. Most historians agree that religion as we know it, in particular institutions, began around 12,000 years ago, perhaps a bit earlier, when humanity stopped living as nomadic hunter gatherers and started to develop agrarian communities. As these early societies began to grow there was a need to develop something that could define how people behaved so that people, that up until then were territorial and dependent on small family groups could live peacefully together in larger social groups. The easiest way to do this was to develop a social identity that revolved around their own spiritual beliefs. Before humanity began to live a rather sedentary life, they had little time to worry about things such as God or god's, or even morality and virtue, and instead were concerned with the daily struggle to survive. The difference in lifestyle allowed them to devote time to thinking about these things, so that concepts that up until that period of time were focused on their needs, such as Shamanism and it's understanding of how nature worked, gradually changed into something else, something that could define the needs of the urban lifestyle. In particular rules were required where there were few before. Telling someone something is wrong that previously was completely acceptable isn't as easy as saying, "well we're not hunters anymore John, we're farmers and city folk, you can't just kill Bob because he took your sheep." What was needed was something that held a more significant deterrent, so what worked was saying something like, "John, you can't kill Bob because he killed your sheep, if you do you've committed murder and you'll spend eternity in the fiery pits of hell." That's a bit of a simplification, but overall what most academics agree upon. Those people that did not acclimate to the new social dynamic were most likely either ostracized or indentured. What you're seeing today is the continuation of this ostracizing. We develop studies that prove the moral superiority of the pious and degenerate the unbeliever, in order to encourage assimilation. I'm certain they had no exit polls regarding the reason why these people chose to keep the money or give it away, rather the academics conducting the study made conclusions based on the social value of that act. Without understanding exactly why one group decided to keep the money and the others didn't you can't be entirely certain about the motivation, it's all hypothetical, in the sense that one can know what to expect if someone is exposed to this stimulus, but not exactly the cause of this stimulus. I would hypothesize that the reason has to do with several factors, including the culture that the participants were a part of as well as the background of the individuals. If these people were raised to identify with Christian values, then giving away ten dollars would most likely be seen as a charitable act, but also one might keep in mind it was only ten dollars. If they had given these people 1,000 dollars I think the numbers would've been much different. In the end what these people are doing is what was expected of them. The mere question, "Do you want to keep this money or give it to an anonymous participant?" Is a loaded question. If one keeps the money, what will the person asking think of them? In fact the use of the word puzzle is meant to reinforce religious ideology. I think if you ran the same puzzle experiment and used words associated with compassion, kindness, charity, etc. that the results would've been about the same. Essentially all this proves is that religion after all this time, still serves essentially the same purpose it did 12,000 years ago, it's merely a reminder of what society deems we should be doing. This doesn't mean that religion is good or bad, simply that at one point it was needed. I think the more important question is, is it still needed? Aaron edit- I also think it's kind of funny that I didn't get involved in this debate because I kept reading it as "The dangers of aesthetic thinking." Once I realized it was atheist thinking, that piqued my curiosity.

Hello Manitou, I wouldn't worry about whether or not other people have felt the same way you do. This is your experience and it's every bit a part of you. I say embrace it, especially if it's something that brings you peace. In the end it's not about becoming enlightened or expressing Te within one's life so much, as it is learning to live life day to day, by understanding life on life's terms. Aaron

Hello Ya Mu, I'm not certain if I agree. I think it has nothing to do with morality or low virtue, but I think in certain instances it does have to do with emotion. In the case of showing compassion for someone suffering for instance, or when one risks their life to save someone else, not because it is virtuous, but because something inside them told them too. Often times if you ask these people why, their answer is, "anyone would've done it." The reason they say this, in my opinion, is because that action seemed to be the natural reaction. {edit- In case it doesn't appear obvious, I think there are emotional components to these actions, whether it is compassion or a concern for someone's life (i.e. love).) The problem with many people and Taoism is they get this idea that Taoism isn't about morality and to be completely honest, it's not, but in the same way, it's not about being shallow or self-centered either. It's not about proving how witty you are or about gathering personal power in the hopes of eternal living, it's about being a part of the world today, right now, and understanding that being a part of the world today, right now, is completely ordinary, but in being ordinary is extraordinary. Our capacity to be kind and compassionate is great, yet because we attach a moral value to this act, many scoff at it, because they see it as something that is constraining and smothering, something that denies them their ability to be their true selves, even though in most cases these people don't understand who they truly are. We talk about High Virtue, like it's something that can be taught or practiced, learned even, and that's not the entire truth. It's something that is experienced once someone has learned to let go of controlling their lives and allowing themselves to be swept up in the current. Does that mean you wont paddles out of the way of a rock now and again, absolutely not, but it doesn't mean that you need to swim against the current anymore either. Anyways, I'm trying to refrain from long posts and my five minutes are up, so I'm out of here. I hope everyone is having a great night. Peace be with you. Aaron

I think this is a fine topic for the Tao Teh Ching section, especially since it's considered to be one of the classical Taoist texts on Qi. Since Tao Bums has a large Qi Crazy populace, the only recommendation I'd make is to let them know you're posting it over here, since many of them might enjoy reading it as well. Aaron edit- I decided to go ahead and post a message over there, so no worries Manitou.

Hello Otis, No need to believe anything really. I'm just stating an observation. Aaron

Hello folks, The problem stems with needing to be right. When people care less about what others think and more about what they themselves believe to be true, then they will cease having to prove that their way is the right way. Egotism is the crux here, the feeling that others need to be inferior and that our own beliefs are superior. I think much of this stems from self-loathing, at least self-loathing that is directed at one's own culture. It blinds us and makes it so we can't be objective, even if under close scrutiny something can be proved, the innate intolerance for anything that is even remotely related to what we despise is dismissed and belittled. I would say that High Virtue is not necessarily solely listening, but rather an intuitive understanding of how the world works, an understanding that allows us to make the right decision because we intuitively know what that decision is, because we understand on a deeper level the differences between needs and wants. The idea that this is a spontaneous action is true, but only in the sense that the action is not derived from a moral conviction, but rather an understanding of the actions necessity, which causes us to react in an natural way. I do believe we are born with this capacity, but in learning to behave in accord with society, we learn that rules are applied to our actions, that right and wrong dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable. It is this knowledge that overrides the natural reaction that would normally occur. In a sense returning to this state is like learning to paint. We knew at one time to paint, but somewhere along the line we were taught that the way we paint naturally isn't aesthetically pleasing or acceptable and thus we are taught to paint the way that is accepted. In learning to paint once again, we understand the act of painting for what it is, an expression of ourselves, and that expression does not need to stay within the lines or be dictated by color schemes, but rather is guided by what is deep within ourselves, something that is also connected to the world around us. To get back to needs and wants, I need to eat, drink, and sleep, but I want many other things. Detachment, emotional detachment that is, is not the absence of emotion, but rather understanding emotions for what they are, knowing when an emotional response is tied to a want, rather than a necessity. I believe St. John understood this, as did many other Western philosophers and mystics. The inherent problem with examining this premise, is that when you work along the Western academic philosophical ideology, what you end up coming up with is a want to logically determine this, when in fact this highest form of Virtue is not something learned, but rather experienced. In the end, though, this is all subjective, and though it might be right or true for me, it might not be so for someone else. I have no need to prove this right, rather a want. If I talk about this, it's not because you need to know what I know, but I want to share what I know. If I understand this then I can carry on a conversation with you without resorting to derogatory comments, belittling your own ideas, or attacking your character, and instead I can address the points in question and talk about it in a civil manner. Again, virtue, High Virtue, is not an exclusive concept, it does not stem solely from one philosophy, but rather is something that we are all capable of experiencing, regardless of what religious or philosophical school of thought we choose to follow. That was the point I tried to make. Aaron

Hello Otis, Here's the lines that make me wonder... The last passage is the most telling, but the prior ones say a lot. They say that everything is a lie and that this person has the truth, even if that truth is that there is no truth. It goes on to advocate that one must be willing to give up everything in order to find the truth, which is what caused me some concern about the author in the first place. After reading up on the author I found out that he has several offices around the world where he and other members who have reached a certain rank counsel others. He advocates that treatment of the human condition is not a quick fix but requires a long commitment. If I am correct, I'm almost certain that this person would advocate leaving those things that conflict with the ideals he teaches, people included. I'm almost certain that the people involved pay hefty sums for this counseling and I'm almost certain that once they are in counseling for any length of time, it's probably very hard for them to leave. The cult mentality isn't always based on religion, sometimes it uses science and philosophy as a tool. I wont mention the organizations that do this, because they're sue happy, but they're out there. The fact is most cults have a small amount of truth that draws people in and surrounding that truth is the dogma that keeps them. I may be wrong, I'm just saying I wouldn't put all my eggs in this basket. Aaron

Hello Everything, First, you apparently didn't read all the posts, or you would've noticed that this issue was addressed. Second you may be interested in learning more about the reason why people feel fear. There is a woman who feels no fear, she suffered an illness that damaged her brain and now she incapable of feeling fear. The problem is that the woman tends to do things that are dangerous without realizing it. Fear has a purpose, it's part of our original nature. Also you're talking in the past tense, which strikes me as odd. You're previous posts regarding turning back time lends me to believe that you are suffering from some regret. Regret often leads us to ponder the meaning of our existence and also what the future holds for us. What I would suggest is that, in this particular case, it might be better for you to examine the fears that are causing you to worry about these things. In particular why, after reaching enlightenment, you now seem to be preoccupied with immortality and changing things that have happened? I don't fear death, believe it or not. I have a very good idea of what death is and I've come to terms with it. Do I still fear things? Yes. I wont put my hands in a fire, because I don't want to get burnt. I look both ways before crossing the street because I'm afraid of getting hit by a car. I'm careful when I chop vegetables because I don't want to get cut. I'm careful when I talk to others because I'm afraid of hurting their feelings. Fear is necessary in order for us to interact with the world safely. It's not strictly linked to death, but also fear of physical pain, emotional suffering, and numerous other things. An enlightened person understands the nature of fear and does not deny it, but accepts it for what it is, and by accepting it, transcends it's limitations. Most of all, an enlightened person does not say, "Well, appart from 2netis, most of you guys are not immortal." Aaron

Qi isn't neutral either. It's just Qi. The concept of morality and virtue are human constructs, they aren't a part of nature or Tao. Right and wrong, sin and godliness, are all measure by which we value actions, in order to discourage or encourage those actions. I think what you're confusing is Qi and Te, which are two different things. Some people tend to believe that Te is Qi, but in my own experience Te is the potential for action from Tao and Qi is the underlying energy that permeates everything. Qi is not Tao, nor is it Te, but it arises from both. Te is not achieved by living a virtuous life, but rather by returning to your original nature and allowing your actions to be in accord with the world around you. Aaron

The part about giving up our beliefs being terrifying and the last paragraph strikes me as odd and a bit in line with what you hear cult leaders advocate, the idea that one has to be willing to give up everything in order to find "truth" "salvation" or whatever else is on the agenda. The reason they do this is to break down the dependence of the person on his family and beliefs and instead rely on the beliefs and teachings of the leader. Once a person has given up the former, all they have left is the latter and if they are dependent on the latter for any length of time, then trying to leave the "cult" is incredibly difficult, because the cult and its ideology is all they have left. I can agree that one should not accept ultimate truths, in fact there is no ultimate truth, there is only our experience, but to say that one should give up ultimate truths while presenting one, seems kind of sinister. Aaron

Whenever I think of immortality two things come to mind, the book, "Tuck Everlasting" which had a profound impact on me as a child, and the song by Queen, "Who wants to Live Forever". I wonder sometimes why people want to be immortal, what the real meaning behind it is, if not just a fear of dieing. Death gives our lives meaning (in my opinion). The finiteness of our lives allows us to appreciate this life we're living now. Immortality for me is a given, even with all that said, but it's a different form of immortality, it's the knowledge that even after this body has decayed I will go on, even if it's not as the ego-self/person I am now, but rather something else. So I guess what I would do is exist as I will exist. Aaron

I have a great idea. What I mean to say is that I have an idea that is big! I want to share it with you, but before I can do that, I have to ask you to do a few things. First I want you to have an open mind, by that I mean I want you to set aside what you know right now and listen to what I am going to say without judging it based on what you believe, but rather judge it based on what you know. To clarify this a bit more, I don't want you to base your judgement on things you'v learned in books or from other people, but rather from what you experience in your day to day life. If you can do that, then I think you'll be able to appreciate what I am going to share. Let me begin by saying that if I hadn't learned a few things, I wouldn't have been able to understand what I understand today, but in the same way, if I hadn't been taught to believe the things I did, then I would've known what I know now all along. I spent two decades seeking enlightenment, the key to existence, the knowledge of good and evil, the ultimate truth, and what I came away with was an understanding that none of these things are real. This is the real truth, that there is no truth. My experience was wrought with pain and pleasure, delusions and truths, all in the hopes that I would at some point understand something that would make life worth living. That's why we seek enlightenment or truth, to make some sense of it all, to add some type of value that we don't see. The fact is there is no value to life, except the value we give it. I searched for something to believe, thinking that somehow or some way, I would wake up one day and know the answer, but the truth is that the answer was there all along, hiding underneath the surface waiting to rise up and make itself aware. This idea that I am sharing with you isn't enlightenment, at least not what you may want enlightenment to be, and I will make it clear now, just knowing what I am going to tell you wont change anything, rather it will require active participation on your part, you'll need to do something about it in order for you to really know what this idea is all about. I've spoken before about this illusion that we carry, this idea of what we really are, what we are taught to believe we are. We are spiritual beings living in a physical vessel. We are drivers, rather than the vehicle. This is the first thing I had to understand to really get the idea that I'm sharing with you. Let me make this clear, you are not a driver, you are a vehicle. You are your body, your heart, your hair, fingernails, blood cells, and brain matter. You are all of this. If you are going to understand anything else I have to share, then you have to understand this first. It's only after understanding what you truly are that you'll be able to understand anything else I have to share. In order to really see this world and your place in it, then you must see yourself as you truly are. Right now, if you touch your finger to your nose, you're are not driving your finger, you are your finger and your nose. You've moved to touch you. This idea, when you see it like this is amazing. We see ourselves as separate from our body because it allows us to separate ourselves from our actions, to give us some distance from the responsibilities that we hold. It allows us to place blame on our bodies, rather than ourselves. It allows us to distance ourselves from our pain and say that this pain is not really a part of us, and we do this so well, that eventually we begin to see our emotions as separate from ourselves as well. We didn't really feel that way, rather it was that separate part of us that felt it. None of this is true. We feel and do everything we do. Understanding this becomes a bit overwhelming, the initial joy one has understanding their true nature, suddenly comes with the knowledge that we are to blame for everything that we do. You say, I can't make anyone feel anyway that they don't choose to feel and suddenly realize that if you didn't do what you did, then that person never would've felt the way they did in the first place. You are no longer separate from your actions, you are every bit a part of your actions as you are your body. But it doesn't stop there. We are not simply we's, but rather I's. A colony of cells form a body, and we form a body as well, we are not merely the entirety of the human race, but the entirety of existence. Every part at work in this universe is a part of us. I am as much a part of you as you are me. If I look at the way I interact with you and stop seeing it as you and me and instead begin to see it as what I am doing to me, then my actions are more than simply actions against some separate person, but to me. When I look at your wellbeing as my wellbeing, then I can do something for you and understand I am doing it for me. I can love you and understand that I am loving me. That everything I do is for us as we really are. I can understand that love and compassion are not just lofty moral notions, but rather the intended way for me to behave towards you. Does this mean if you are hurting me, that I should allow you to hurt me? Absolutely not. When cancerous cells start forming in the body, other cells start to fight those cells, because they are causing harm. In the same way if you harm me, or me you, then it's only natural for me to defend myself and you to defend yourself, the difference is recognizing you and me for what we truly are, because when we can do this, then our reactions are no longer based on moral precepts, but rather on the knowledge of what allows the body of everything to exist in harmony. So if you're still following this, then I guess you might be interested in what's next. Well what is next? What do you think is next? If we are all It, as I like to call everything, then what does that mean? If that's all it takes to really become aware or enlightened, then what does that mean? Well it doesn't end there, because believing this isn't enough. You must know it, you must experience it with every breath you breathe, every action that you take, everything that you do must be seen as a part of It. That's the hard part. We think that thinking about this is enough, but it isn't. It takes action to understand this on a deeper level, not only action in thought, but also in the way we interact with those around us. This is the fact, we will never be free of our ego-self, this idea of who we are that has been taught to us, because it has been made a part of us. The tragedy is that we have sought a means of existence that is quite unnatural, that defies what we are supposed to be doing. In seeking to live a life separate from the natural world, one where we are not a part of the world, but rather can control the world, we have had to come up with a way to understand this new existence. We no longer kill only what we can eat. We know longer pick berries from the bushes and pull up roots where they grow in nature, instead we herd animals together and plant food in straight lines, all for the sake of making life easier, but in making life easier, we have forgotten exactly what life is about. Before we farmed, we could live spontaneously. We could make decisions based on the situations that presented themselves. The fact is, we did not end up the way because we made a conscious decision, but rather because a decision presented itself and we mistook it for something better than what was. We thought that an end to hunger and uncertainty was what was intended to be, not understanding that the hunger we felt, that the uncertainty in living was every bit a part of who we were. When the chances were taken away from us, when we stopped living according to the worlds rules and started to make up the rules for ourselves, what ended up happening was that we separated ourselves from that world and the only thing we could do from that point on was devise a way to live in this new world we created. We stopped communicating with one another and started speaking to one another. We stopped viewing ourselves as a family of one, and instead saw ourselves as citizens within a community. We stopped seeing the needs of everyone as being important and instead began to worry about our individual needs. This isn't going to change. We are locked into this cycle of living. The only way we can work within society is to understand that we are ego-selves, that this ego-self was created out of necessity. Lao Tzu and Buddha tried to explain this and they actually did, but the problem was that not many people understood it, and perhaps you don't really understand it now. The simplest way to explain is to say that there is a natural way and then their is the way that happens when we stop living in accord with what's natural. My great idea isn't to realize the truth about I, but that in understanding the truth of I, you begin to understand all of the things that you've been taught for what they really are. In understanding this you can begin to understand that all the things we think are important really aren't. Making money, buying i-pods, and watching television are not the meaning of existence, but rather ways we distract ourselves from existence. I have said once or twice that there will never be world peace or an end to suffering, that as long as mankind is on the face of the earth, that these things can't exist, this is true. Yet, even knowing that this is true I know that my actions are very important. The choices I make do not simply effect me, but everything in existence. My decisions help to make It, Me, a bit better if I choose to be loving and compassionate. True knowledge isn't knowing the things that you've learned in books, but knowing the things that are true about you. True knowledge is knowing that I am It and you are It. That we are all a part of It. I would like to talk about this more, because there's more to be said, but I want to leave you with that, and if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask them. Also, please be aware that I am not writing this to debate whether or not this is true, so I wont argue with you about this, because there's no need. If you don't believe this, that's fine. In the end the only thing I am doing is sharing something that took me nearly two decades to learn, in the hopes that if this is what you are looking for, it wont take quite as long for you. Aaron

Hello XieJia, In response to your first question, it depends on what you consider Tao to be. If you're talking about the process in which the universe was created, then yes, we are all a part of Tao. If you're talking about a natural course of action, one that's in harmony with Tao, then no we are not all a part of Tao. So yes and no. In response to your second question, we are all a part of Tao. Is practicing to work in harmony with Tao beneficial? Yes. Is this the best time to begin to work in harmony with Tao? Well I think anytime is the best time. I would say that it really doesn't matter in the end. Telling someone that they need to work towards awareness or enlightenment, or even cultivate Tao, is like telling a child they need to eat their carrots. Even though eating carrots is in their best interest, if they don't like the taste of carrots, then they'll never be able to appreciate them. My point is that there is a method to what many see as madness, and that if someone wishes to find this method, then they need to start with themselves. The answer is not out in the world but within us. The truth that many seek is not a truth at all, but rather something that exists within and needs only to be realized. One does not need Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Shamanism, or numerous other -isms to become aware of this, they need only take the effort needed to work effortlessly with everything in existence. Aaron

Hello Blasto, I can't help you. In parting, you will never find peace so long as you strive for conflict. Be done with conflict and you will find harmony in your life. Even the warrior knows that the best way to win a fight is not to fight at all. I really hope you can determine where the angst resides within, what causes you the need to be right and prove others wrong. Knowledge for the sake of knowing is worthless, it's only when one understands that knowing does not involve learning, but rather understanding, that they will begin to learn. Cease fighting and peace will be with you. I hope you have the capacity to respect my wishes and leave me in peace. Aaron

Hello Blasto, My friends and family respect me, love me, and talk to me. I listen to them. I do my best to help others on a daily basis. When people suffer I try to ease their suffering. I examine my actions on a daily basis and strive to do the right thing. I do this because I want to, because I feel a deep purpose in it, not because I need to. I have no desire to deal with people who have no peace in their lives. I have no desire to deal with people who are incapable of discussing things in a polite and courteous manner. If you want to talk to me in the future, please follow these few basic rules of politeness. Do not make derogatory comments about me. Do not diminish my ideas because they don't follow your own ideas and please, for the love of all that's holy, do not try to have an intellectual conversation with me. Aaron edit- Now that you've evoked a response from me, please think about the following, if you are repeatedly having issues with other people in your own life (and on this site) to the point that you have to take fasts from them, perhaps the issue has to do with you and not the other people.

Hello Blasto, Again your response (as was Easy's) was meant to evoke an emotional response. I see many people who seem to be more interested in arguing or debating than discussing. In order to achieve this goal they often resort to making derogatory comments that are meant to incite the person they are directed at. I will not argue or debate. I will tell you what I believe and you can go from there. You have every right to say what you want to, but I have every right to ignore you if I believe you are behaving in a childish manner. When you can approach this conversation with mutual respect, then I will be willing to talk to you. In the meantime, let go of your anger and resentment. I urge you to look within yourself to find what your anger is really about. There is no deep hidden truth here, that's one point I tried to make. The truth is here, we just need to know it, rather than believe it. I also apologize if this has something to do with my failure to respond to your personal messages, if so, please accept my apology, I never intended to offend you. Aaron edit- I did respond to your questions by the way, please feel free to contact me via messenger.

Hello Xiejia, I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. What you're alluding to is to a buddhist form of dualism and I'm not advocating that, rather what I'm saying is that we're all part of a greater whole, that I am not you and you are not me in the ego-self sense, but rather that we are It and by being It we are each other. I hope that makes more sense. Aaron

Hello Easy, A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. With that said, I leave you to your trolling. Peace be with you. Aaron