Aaron

Hello Easy, I had written a response, but I deleted it. Please troll elsewhere. Aaron

Hello Marble, Thanks, but don't take what I said as a sign that I wont discuss this, rather I'm not here to defend myself. In other words this isn't about me being wrong or someone else being right, so don't feel like you can't make a comment. I would just rather not have this be about duality vs. non-duality, etc. I'm more interested in addressing the heart of the matter and not the dogma. Aaron

Hello 2netis, I see someone else has read the Tao of Zen as well. This is essentially the same argument put forward by that book. I do have issues with some of these premises, in particular I don't care for the term dual or non-dual, since it's really neither, in the end it's really only existence. The need to label these things is mostly done to accommodate certain religious and ideological needs. The idea that there is duality to existence is false. This is all there is and there is more? But if there is more where is it? Well it is here, you just don't realize it. But I do realize it and by realizing it, I realize it's not here, I just want it to be here. The fact is existence is existence and the emptiness you speak of is an expression of creation. There is no symbiotic existential emptiness that exists within all things. This is like saying that we each have a spirit or soul, but having no real proof that we do. But I experienced emptiness. No, what you experienced was awareness of creation, that beautiful and frightening moment from which everything comes into existence. We are told along the path what to expect, so we expect it and when it happens, we clap and say, "Hey I got it! I'm one of your guys!" The fact is that you were always one of us guys, you just didn't know it. The reality of existence and nature of our ego-self means that if we are to return to what we originally were, then we must again reach that point where we can be empty of preconceptions and ideas and allow spontaneity to exist again. In the same way, we can never escape this ego-existence. It's like joining the mafia, once you're in the only way out is to die. Every time I hear someone talk about emptiness I look at what they say about it and the more empty they make it sound, the more I know they've never experienced it. What people seem to be confused about is that it's not really empty at all, it's really absolutely nothing. It is only from nothing that everything can exist. Anyways, I enjoyed your post. Aaron

Hello Everything, What the Tao Teh Ching teaches, isn't that people shouldn't have beliefs or faith, but rather that one should learn to live in a way that is harmonious with others. Wu-Wei, non-interference. The sage says nothing, but rather teaches through his actions. The Sage puts others before himself, and by doing so puts himself first. A Sage never steps on another person, hence his presence is never felt. There's this common idea that humanity, justice, religion, and morality are bad things, but in fact they aren't, rather they are things that arise when Tao is abandoned. The fact is mankind, at least 99.99 percent of mankind, has abandoned Tao. That's the reason these things have arisen. Faith and belief arise because they are necessary to explain our "ego-self" existence. In order to work with a society defined by the "ego-self" that is separate from nature, one must have rules of engagement. To expect or believe that one can drop beliefs and faith, or that one should direct beliefs and faiths towards only good and tolerant beliefs and faiths, is like telling a fish out of the water that all he has to do is learn to breathe differently. A Sage doesn't teach, because he knows he has nothing to teach. What he does can't be learned from books, but rather from not practicing, which is only achieved by practice. So the Sage goes about his life doing what needs to be done, living in harmony with the world around him, understanding that, even if he understands the actual nature of existence, it doesn't change the nature of existence. I can't change anyone's perception of reality, no one can, only they can. I would recommend that if one is truly worried about belief and faith, then they should start to look at their own beliefs and faith, because more often than not, the fear and anger that one has towards another's beliefs is often caused by fear, anger, or guilt that they feel themselves. If one wants to truly live a life without judgement of others, then one must first stop judging himself. If one truly wants to love others, then one must first love himself. If one truly wants to live without beliefs and faith, then one should first understand everything in existence, otherwise it just can't be done. Aaron

Hello Vortex, Very good point, but I think the problem is also that when you say "follow your heart" you're applying a moral value to it, since heart is meant to be the "goodness within" and that's not what original nature is at all.* If you follow your heart what you're actually doing is following what you've been taught is the altruistic self that exists within. Is this a bad thing, absolutely not, at least not morally speaking, but is it following original nature? Not at all. Original nature is about needs verses wants, understanding one's place within the world on an intrinsic level, and acting in accord with Tao, rather than in one's best interests. The last part is the only altruistic aspect that one can garner from it, the only problem being that society might not view it as such. With all that said, there's a reason enlightened people don't go on rampages, become dictators, or encourage violence, because there is a general understanding that as human beings we are meant to work together. This comes back to wu-wei, the idea of non-action, or noninterference. If we are working in accordance with our original nature then we do not feel the need to interfere when there's no need to. We understand that what's actually important is our own actions in regards to the world and not others actions. Hence the Sage doesn't start rebellions or inspire the masses to prepare for the apocalypse, rather they take the moment that they are living in at that time and pay attention to it. From this moment all other moments come. Understand where you are now and you will understand the past and future without knowing either. Aaron *- Also it's very easy to misinterpret original nature as original sin. This actually may be a closer comparison, since much of religion and morality is about denying the impulses one has that are deemed unacceptable by society. Religions were formed in order to ensure that nomadic societies that were evolving into agrarian societies would be able to work together and live together without excessive violence.

Hello Everything, In my own mind non-action isn't about not taking action, but rather not interfering, not forcing our will upon others. So to explain it in it's most simple terms, it's about learning to live in harmony with others. There is a time for action and non-action, the trick it to learn when to do either. Aaron edit- A simpler example would be to view yourself as existing on a boat in a river. You can either try to fight against the current or learn to travel with it. At times you may approach a rock and need to change course, so you do, but if you don't want to struggle so much on your trip down the river, then you let the river do the work when you can.

Hello Ben and Manitou, I guess my point is that in shamanic traditions, Shamans are never described like Sages are. If you can offer any examples, I'll be happy to agree, but I've never seen or heard of any. I think it's okay if you want Taoism to be linked to ancient Chinese Shamanic traditions, but in the long run, as I stated before, there is no real link, aside from hypothesis, that Taoism evolved from the former. In fact it is much more likely that it evolved from exposure to Hindu philosophy, just as many people believe Qi Gong evolved from Yoga. The similarities between the basic philosophies of Hinduism and Taoism are much more alike than Shamanism and Taoism. Aaron

Well "The Story of India" is an excellent documentary, but there's also some fairly interesting entries on Wikipedia. Other than that, I've heard snippets from various sources, conversations, etc. In regards to Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, if I remember correctly, the set up of the pantheon is similar, but also there is a strong duality present in Zoroastrianism, it may have even been more present before Zoroaster's arrival. Interesting to add, Zoroastrianism predates Judaism. Many academics believe that it heavily influenced the monotheistic nature of Judaism. There's also evidence to support it predates every other known religion on the face of earth, (excluding the Athena Cults and some ancient shamanistic traditions.) On a side note, the Tao Teh Ching is a far cry from Shamanism. The influence of shamanism on Taoism is often seen within the I-Ching and not later texts such as the Tao Teh Ching or Chuang Tzu. There has never been any clear evidence that Taoism originated from Shamanism, rather it's speculation. Anyways, I hope that helps you get started. Aaron

Hi Immortal, I've been doing a bit of research on Eastern Religions and one interesting find lies in Turkmenistan. In the plains there they've found ancient ruins of what they believe were the ancient descendants of the Aryans. The forts they've found match descriptions of an ancient civilization found in the Vedics. It's, I believe, safe to assume that they were the earliest ancestors of the Indians, but also that they influenced Chinese culture as well. Pictographs found on a seal match pictographs used in Ancient China nearly 2,500 years later. My personal, non-educated guess is that the spiritual traditions that evolved into Brahmanism and Taoism both originated in this plain, and evolved in different ways over the many thousand years that passed. Perhaps the ancient practice of Qi Gong and Yoga started here as well. Something else that is interesting and supports this assumption is that this civilization practiced a proto-Zoroastrianism, in other words an older form of what eventually became Zoroastrianism as defined by Zoroaster. If one looks at some of the underlying beliefs in Zoroastrianism, there is evidence to support that this was perhaps the origin of our understanding of Tao or Brahma, the original source of all creation... Anyways, it's all speculation. I do believe that history is important, but I don't think it will preclude the true understanding of existence, which I believe has remained unchanged in India for several thousand years and China for nearly as long. Aaron edit- Another interesting fact. Brahmans have passed down by oral tradition ancient chants that are practiced during religious ceremonies. These chants are from a language that we no longer understand, one that could've been spoken several thousand years ago. Because of the strict nature of the teaching of these chants, it's entirely likely that the pronunciation used today is exactly the same used when it was originally spoken. How can you make this assumption? Well the fact that if you have an eighty year old brahman recite the chant in one part of India, it will be exactly the same as the chant being recited by a twelve year old who has been taught the chant on the other side of India.

I've come to the conclusion that the Tao Teh Ching isn't the answer to everything. It needs to be taken with a grain of salt. As others have already stated, the text went through subtle variations over several centuries and what we have now is almost certainly not what was originally written. In my own opinion you should read it and make a reasonable assumption to it's intent. I don't think Lao Tzu ever intended it to be used as a bible, quoted and investigated under close scrutiny and debate, but rather one should read it and go from there. Now one can still read it and examine it, but I think in the long run, if one doesn't actually apply what's being expressed in the text, then it's the same as going to church on Sunday and the brothel on Monday. The true key to understanding Tao doesn't lay in understanding the Tao Teh Ching, but rather understanding the nature of the Tao and our own intrinsic connection to it. Lao Tzu's intent wasn't to explain the Tao, but to explain how one can come to understand the Tao. Aaron

I've heard traditional members of the Taoist religion refer to Alan Watts as "that man from California." Ironically he's English, but he did live in California and was profoundly influential in the counter culture movement. I also believe that he was one of the first Westerners to truly understand how much the Western world needed Eastern philosophy. In a time when many people in the west were losing faith in nearly every institution, Watts came along and showed them another way, one that had been there all along, but was ignored and dismissed as Eastern Barbarism at best and rubbish at worst. What ended up happening was that he exposed millions of Westerners to a way of thought that profoundly changed their lives and Western history forever. Buddhism and Taoism are two of the fastest growing religions in the Western world. There are millions of Western Taoists and Buddhists today that may never have been if it were not for Watts and others, like Eugen Herrigal. I also credit Watts "The Book" as being the turning point for me, where I ceased to wonder and finally understood. He was an amazing man, a womanizer, a philanderer, and yes a liar, but none the less, amazing. He understood better than most the true weakness inherent in morality and the reason why so many people needed something that made sense of the paradoxical world we live in. Aaron

I'm kind of disheartened by the mood of this thread. It seems that people are having problems respecting other peoples ideas as being valid. Regardless of whether pratītyasamutpāda, dukkha, or samsara are valid explanations, the fact that people do believe that they are valid means that we should respect those ideas and try to talk about them in a respectful manner. With that said, I think what is being missed here is that a belief in dukkha, pratītyasamutpāda, or samsara are not requisite for one to become enlightened, but rather they were an explanation of the need for enlightenment, which was a freedom from suffering. In my own opinion I believe they were tools Buddha used to motivate people to pursue enlightenment as he defined it. My own opinion is that none of it matters in the end. If one comes to an honest understanding of the world, be that through Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam, they will still come away enlightened. To clarify what I'm saying, the main requirement for enlightenment is not a release from suffering, but rather an understanding of the nature of the world and our place in the world. Trying to come up with an ultimate truth is completely subjective, because the truth doesn't exist without there also being a lie. So when one looks at dependent origination, one should also understand that it is the opposite side of the spectrum, and that it requires non-dependent origination to exist. This is the crux of enlightenment, that one must understand that enlightenment in the end is merely an illusion, that when we achieve enlightenment we also achieve a very basic understanding that enlightenment isn't real. I can say I'm enlightened, and according to text books I am, but in the same breath I can tell you that I am not enlightened, nor have I ever been enlightened, rather I have only been. My understanding of the world and my own place within the world, even my understanding of death and the truth about death, does not change the fact that I am still the same person I was before I ever understood anything. I believe that before one embarks on the path of enlightenment they should examine the reason why they wish to be enlightened. In my own opinion a desire to be free of suffering is a bit of a shoddy excuse and I think Buddha would agree, but in the same way, if you are a guru and you have something you wish to share with others that you think may improve their lives, or save their souls, whatever the case may be, you also need to supply the student with a reason to pursue it. Freedom from guilt, sin, and suffering are universal in all religious teachings, because they supply ample motivation to proceed on a path of righteousness or spirituality. My own opinion is that nothing I have to say matters if one is seeking righteousness, freedom from suffering, or a universal truth, because none of these things exist. Suffering will exist as long as pleasure exists. Righteousness will exist as long as guilt exists, and universal truth will exist so long as lies exist. You can't have one without the other. If you achieve freedom from suffering, then what are you experiencing and how do you gauge that experience? If one is truly free of suffering then they also must be free of the memory of suffering and if that's so, then what reference do you use to understand the state you're in? That is the key here, that there is no freedom from suffering, because there is no freedom from pleasure. On an even deeper level, how can you describe this experience to someone who has never experienced it and is incapable of understanding it? How can you talk about suffering, know about suffering, and yet still claim to be free of it? Doesn't the knowledge of suffering infer that one is still restrained within the paradigm of suffering? I guess what I'm trying to say is that claiming to know the way, the light, and the truth, especially if one really does, is a bit bonkers, because in understanding the way, the light, and the truth, one also understands that their is no justifiable explanation that can allow someone to understand any of these things in a deeply spiritual sense, the only way one can understand them is to experience them. Buddha was a great man, but so were many other prophets and philosophers. The fact of the matter is that whether one believes in dependent origination or not, it doesn't change the fact that we have the ability to respect that idea, whether we agree with it or not. I understand that my argument may seem to be hypocritical, but in reality it's not, because I don't want to convince anyone of anything, rather I will tell someone, sit and meditate, learn about yourself first, then learn about the world. You can't learn about the world without first learning about yourself. Once you've done that, then you are ready for the grand awareness that inevitably will be a bit of letdown. The fact of the matter is that enlightenment wont free you from anything, rather it tends to wrap you up in everything more than before, because once you've reached that state, you understand even more clearly than before the connection that exists between you and everything else. Aaron

Hello Vaj, I wonder if you understand exactly what Manitou refers to as the "soul"? In my experience the soul can mean many different things for many different people and assuming one definition as the definition being used in any particular instance isn't necessarily accurate. Perhaps the best thing to do is ask what she means when she says "soul"? Aaron

Hello KC, As a recovered alcoholic, I wish you well in your own recovery. It's not easy, but it's well worth it. Aaron

Hello KC, No one likes to feel helpless, but there's no need for you to feel this way. First lets look at that passage you qouted... "When the great Tao is forgotten, goodness and piety appear." Now some might debate whether or not this is an accurate translation, but I think it's accurate enough for us to get an idea of what these lines mean. Now when you read these lines and apply a value to Tao, then what you come away with is this idea that Tao is the ultimate goodness, but that's not accurate either, Tao is the way things work or as Lao Tzu is implying, the way things are supposed to work. When people are not working in harmony, or living in harmony, then they are not living according to Tao, and because they're not living according to Tao, they must come up with another way to work, hence good and piety arise. Now think about this, if good and piety did not arise, what would arise in it's place? I wont answer that question, just think about it. My belief is that good and piety arise because it's the next best thing to Tao. It's a second resort, a way for people to live together in at least a semblance of harmony. It's not that these things are inherently bad, but rather a way for people who have developed ego-selves to live with one another. Now the key here is not to knock good and piety, but rather to see them for what they are. Good and piety are value systems that we place on our actions in order to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable in a ego-self world. If they weren't in place the whole ego-self paradigm would fall down upon itself. This is why I am a firm believer that there never will be world peace or universal happiness, there will never be a utopia, because these things don't exist. Nature is not sentimental. Things happen that can hurt us and help us, but the key is to see that these things happen, not because there is a God above that is out to get us or even worse, doesn't care, but rather because that's the way It is. Now when one develops an ego-self what happens is that we begin to realize the finite existence of that ego-self, it can't exist forever, in essence we will die. Death is a great motivator. It's our fear of death that causes us to strive to be all we can be, to provide for those we wont be able to provide for later and also to try and figure out a way for us to escape it, whether that's coming up with a theory of reincarnation or believing that if we're good well end up in paradise. Now as ego-selves we all have that notion of death in the back of our minds, it gnaws at us. It's there even when we don't believe it's there. Now I say if you are afraid of dieing, then embrace that fear! Don't run from it or hide from it, just say, "I don't want to die!" And be done with it. But if it was that easy, you'd see a ton of people who would no longer show up for work or go to church, or even buy video games, because the motivation for those things would be gone. We would no longer try to enjoy life as much as we can, in order to escape this idea of death, but rather we would simply just live life on life's terms. So how does one escape this idea, this notion of finiteness, this need to get things right? Well the simplest way is to understand that death, even if it is simply the end of it all, is a natural part of life. You can't have birth without death, it would be impossible for any universe to support life that continued to procreate and never died out, it's a necessity. In the same way life would not be the same without procreation, that moment of wonder when you enter this world for the first time and see all the marvelous things the world has to offer. We need death. But then if we look at death and see it for what it is, then what do we do? Well we recognize that we are It. We never really die. It will go on forever. Our fear of death stems from the idea that we are separate from this universe, that we are individual souls on a vast turbulent ocean, when in fact we are the molecules that make up that ocean. No our ego-selves wont continue, but the world will. Does this mean that we will come back as something else? Maybe, I mean, if we die and are buried and our bodies decay and fertilize the tree above us, aren't we that tree? If a mother eats the fruit from that tree, doesn't that mean we are the child within her as well? We aren't our ego-selves anymore, but we aren't dead, not in the literal sense, in fact our bodies haven't ceased to exist, they are only existing in a different way. I wish that you could see the world the way I do. I wish that you could understand that all these doubts and worries you cling to are nothing more than dust in the wind, but I can't make you understand anything. I can tell you what's wrong and right until I'm blue in the face, but in order for you to get this, you have to be willing to work towards getting it. You have to be willing to give up everything you've been told is so dear, this idea of self and separateness and see beyond all that. You have to recognize on an intrinsic level that life is more than what you are experiencing right now, that the entirety of existence is the Tao and that the Tao is not separate from anything, because it is the source of all creation and exists within us and is us, just as we are It. If you want to really stop feeling helpless, understand that all your worries don't change anything. That all these illusions of control are simply that, illusions. Recognize that Tao is and whether we are working in accordance with what we believe Tao is, or whether we work to further good and piety, it doesn't change a thing. Tomorrow we could all wake up and this world could be destroyed by a meteor from space and that wouldn't change a thing. We would all still be here, just not the way we've been taught is the right way to be here. Our existence is not just guaranteed, but inevitable. The best thing we can do for ourselves and others is to appreciate this world for what it is. The best thing we can do is to stop worrying about accumulating more and more and just be happy with what we have. It is understanding that our wants are not our needs and that our needs are not our wants that allow us to appreciate this ego-self world we are a part of, but it is knowing that we are so much more than the ego-self that will inevitably grant us peace from all these desires. Well I hope that helps a bit. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello folks, What I find interesting about India is that until Islam was introduced, the people of India were able to live side by side without feeling the need to teach each other that what they believed was right. Even now they are able to do this. The only thing that seems to cause discord and debate is this idea that someone must be right and someone must be wrong. If I know I'm right, then why must I prove I'm right? If I am God, the source, Brahma, or whatever you call it, then why must I prove it to you? Is it not simply enough to explain it and let it be? The first instinct we have when we are pushed is to push back. The problem for the one who is pushing comes when the person he's pushed doesn't push back, but rather falls to the ground and refuses to get up. The pusher has won and in winning lost. Aaron

Hello KC, Someone tricked you. Tao does not say we are good by nature, but rather that we have an original nature. Our original nature has nothing to do with good or bad or morality or virtue, but rather an innate being that exists when we are born. The ego-self is developed because of the society we are raised in, our ability to function in modern society requires that we develop an identity that is separate from others. As long as you continue to see yourself as yourself, then you will continue to view your actions in regards to how they benefit you. This requires selfishness. I repeat this idea a lot, because I believe it is important that people understand it. The truth of the matter is that you are not your ego-self, a passenger within a vehicle, but you are the vehicle. You are your hair, fingernails, heart, and blood. You are your lungs breathing, your heart beating, and even your stomach digesting. Somewhere else I made this analogy and it is appropriate here as well. Your stomach has bacteria in it that helps you to digest food. These microscopic organisms are required for a healthy digestive system. Now doctors will refer to this bacteria as being separate from you, that they are separate lifeforms, but that isn't the truth, in fact they are the body, and without them the body does not function. When we view ourselves as separate beings, we tend to be awed by the shear enormity of the universe. We view ourselves as tiny microscopic organisms, yet we miss a very important fact. We are here in this universe serving a purpose. We are not simply a part of the universe, we are the universe. Everything that exists is connected to us and is required for us to exist. When you begin to see this, not simply on an intellectual level, but on a spiritual level, what you come away with is a deep experience of familiarity. You are not simply you, but you are It and I am It. We are not separate parts of It, but the whole of It, because me and you serve a purpose for It. The trick is to start seeing yourself more as It, than a part of It. Even more important than this you must love you, because even if you understand that you are It, if you do not love you, you can never love It. People have this idea that compassion starts by doing good for someone else, but the truth is compassion starts by loving yourself for who you are, regardless of who you are, regardless of whether you are what your parents wanted you to be, or if you ended up being the person you wanted to be. You have to love yourself unconditionally, mistakes and all, and then if you're sincere in this love, you can start to love others. You'll understand that those moments of charity are moments when you express your love for all of creation, for It, because you love It, by simply loving that small piece of It which is you. Don't kick yourself because you recognize you are selfish, be happy that you do recognize it, because the simple fact that you recognize it means that you can change this part of you. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue to try to be loving and compassionate to others, but rather that sometimes you need to fake it until you make it. Keep being loving and compassionate in your actions and one day you'll wake up and find that these actions are not being forced, but rather are occurring spontaneously from that original nature that exists within you, that nature that tells you, you are It and It is beautiful and ugly, cruel and compassionate, it is the flower that blooms in spring and the tree that withers and dies in the fire. You will never be perfect or free from emotions, you'll never be a completely good person, but what you might find one day is that the person you wake up and look at in the mirror is someone that you can love and by loving that person you'll find you can love It again. (Now I'll tell you a secret, that person that loves It is already within you and once you start looking for him again, it's only a matter of time until you find him.) Aaron

Hello Vaj, Intentions mean nothing, it's the result of the action that matters. Intending to do good, but ending up killing someone in the process, still results in that person's death, regardless of your intention. In the end whether or not you are trying or not trying to do something doesn't matter so much as what you're actually doing. That is why I recommend that you try to respect people's opinions and action as much as you can and that you also restrain from making moral and value judgments when you can. Remember your moral and value system does not preclude you from offending others. Also I "guru" people on a daily basis. The only real necessity is to understand the nature of the problem and advise a solution to that problem. Of course you must also have people willing to listen. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Vaj, You have an excellent grasp of the principles of enlightenment, but you need further practice. I hope you find what you are looking for. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Vaj, It's pointless to debate it, you either see it or don't. If you can't understand the nature of the animosity that has been shown to you by others or the root cause, even after it's been clearly explained to you, then there's nothing more I can do. Peace be with you. Aaron

Hello Dwai, When they say, "those who know don't speak and those who do don't know." What they are talking about is the mysterious Tao, that aspect that can't be explained but only experienced. There's no harm in giving an answer, so long as you know the answer and do it with compassion and understanding. Aaron

Hello Manitou, You touch on a very important point. You are enlightened by definition, but others might say this view isn't enlightened but only self aware. For me I think self-awareness is key to enlightenment, for it is only when one is self-aware that they understand on an intuitive level that they are not the center of the universe. It is only when one realizes that they are the universe that they can truly understand why they are not only the center of the universe, but everything within the universe. Aaron

Hello Vaj, Yes, but by making this discernment you are clinging. As you stated everything is but an apparition, so why must you feel the need to tell someone their beliefs are stupid? How does that show compassion, tolerance, or love for another? That's my point. Will there ever be a time when I need to tell someone that their ideas are stupid? Yes, but I hope when it comes that I can do it in a way that does not engender anger or bias. My point in the end is that I seem to intuitively feel something wrong with that statement. Aaron

Hello Cat Pillar, Because we live in a society that defines right and wrong. Acceptable behavior is behavior that is acceptable and visa versa. As I stated earlier, Watts' stated that we tend to see things in black and white, or black vs white. This doesn't mean that seeing things as black and white is wrong, or doesn't serve a need, only that if one is truly enlightened they will see it for what it is. Try to discuss morality or even subjectivity without being subjective, it can't be done. You can't even be objective without being subjective. The fact is it's one of the ways we understand the world around us, but in the same way it's one of the greatest hindrances for seeing through the ego illusion. Aaron

Hello Non, Before you delve into Buddhism, I'd suggest you read Alan Watts' "The Book". It's actually based on the Vendanta philosophy of Hinduism, but it explains Buddhist and Taoist thought very nicely, and I'm sure will help you recognize the similarities as you further your understanding and practice. Also there is no need to learn Buddhism to become more compassionate, just allow that part of you to be expressed freely and you'll be able to do the same thing. Detachment also will not save you from the worlds problems, it will merely help you to understand what the problems really are. Suffering is not abolished, rather just understood. Anyways, this isn't meant to discourage you, but rather advise you so that you can pursue things with a sense of what they actually are. I hope that you can be free of trappings and see the world for what it is, that ideology, spirituality, and religion are as much a hindrance as materialism. True enlightenment doesn't come from sitting or rituals, rather from awareness. If you know this, then you can appreciate the former and see beyond them. Aaron