Aaron

Hello Exorcist, You are absolutely right about Buddhism's decline in India over the last few centuries, but I would point out that many other cultures, besides India, kept alive the tradition of Buddhism and that many of the original sutras still remain in these nations. Mahayana Buddhism is still alive and well in South East Asia, in particular Thailand. Theravada has been practiced, virtually unchanged in Sri Lanka, since the first century AD. Yo compare Chinese Buddhism to Indian Buddhism isn't quite as simple as it may seem, in particular the Chinese, being a very nationalistic people, never embraced Buddhism until they were able to adapt it to the Chinese mindset. With that in mind, what is practiced in China isn't necessarily the same practice that was taught by the Buddha, although Kumarajiva and many other early translators did go to extensive lengths to ensure what was being translated was as authentic as it could be. But even then, the Chinese attitude about translation was that it should not only be authentic but also enjoyable to read, hence many liberties were taken in translation to adapt concepts of Indian Buddhism in a way that was palatable to the Chinese. I hope that helps to clarify the history a bit. Honestly, you can't sum up 2,000 years of history in a single post, but if one is truly interested in finding information regarding this topic, there are several good books one can read. The Buddhist Handbook, which was the source of my first post in this thread is an excellent resource. Aaron edit- Many of the later Chinese translators happened upon the suppression of Buddhism by the muslims. Muslims burnt many of the important monasteries and temples to the ground, destroying much of the texts and artwork that was present. Even then many monks went to great lengths to hide these texts and keep them safe and it was those monks that risked their own lives to maintain this legacy that allowed many of the Chinese translators to keep alive much of the Mahayana tradition.

Hello adept, I wanted to elaborate a bit on Hua-Yen Buddhism. In the Buddhist Handbook by John Snelling, Snelling explains that the school actually dates from as early as the 6th century AD. It was founded under the premise that immediately after reaching enlightenment Buddha had preached the Avatamsaka Sutra, but those people present couldn't understand it, so instead he taught a simpler teaching, what eventually evolved into the Hinayana Sutra. As time grew and his followers began to understand more, he was eventually able to teach them increasingly advanced teachings, but the Avatamasaka Sutra was the summation of his teachings. Snelling continues to explain that Edward Conze describes Hua-Yen as a link between Yogacara and Tantra. Although it shares a cosmic interpretation of the ontological ideas of the Yogacarin's it also shared a fascination with the cosmic play of things that is held by Tantra. The difference is that rather than focusing on the liberation of one's self by manipulating these cosmic forces through magic, it believed that they could be understood and experienced through contemplation and an appreciation of them. With that said, perhaps the link that you see is the similar ideas between this cosmic view and the Taoist cosmic view, that there is an order to things, a way that things work, and that true enlightenment come from understanding this. Aaron edit- As a side note, Ch'an seems to have come about around the same time as Hua-Yen, but there is little evidence to link them together. Also Hua-Yen is very much a Buddhist school with similarities to Taoism, whereas Ch'an was actually founded by Taoist converts.

Hello Sloppy, Buddhists have gone to great lengths to argue about the teachings of Buddha, but I rarely hear of them arguing about whether greater awareness (I've never cared for the word enlightenment) is real. I think for most, there is an understanding that it can't be proven, rather they take it on faith. There are no miracles that persuade the laymen to have faith, but rather the actions of those who practice encourage others to practice. When one sees another who has become aware (enlightened), regardless of their religion of creed, one is instinctively aware of it. I think in this case enlightenment is completely within our minds, but that in no way detracts from the value of the experience. Aaron edit- Note I've studied Buddhism as a philosophy, but I don't practice Buddhism, so this may be off.

Let me just recommend that the more one tries to stop "daydreaming" the more one is inclined to pay attention to how much they "daydream". The easiest way to stop is to simply redirect your mind to something autonomous, such as breathing. Now the only issue at hand is why "daydreaming" is such a bad thing. I think one needs first understand that nothing is bad or good, rather it is only our definition that makes it such. The idea that one can or will ever be able to cut out "daydreaming" altogether is not only silly, but would seem improbable. If one was able to do this, then they would cease to be a participant in this world and rather be a fixture. A greater understanding of one's existence is not contingent on "daydreaming" or one's ability to not "daydream" but rather the particular awareness that arises when one is able to still their mind. Even that is not enough, there is more, but it's a start. The nice thing about being able to stop "daydreaming" is that one begins to understand the true nature of their "daydreams" and the value of those "daydreams" and what makes up those "daydreams" is ultimately realized. Aaron

My question in regards to the Akashic Records, or any psychic or mystic experience, is how much is actually real and how much is created in our own minds? When I was younger I had no problem believing in psychic powers, runes, i-ching, astral travel, etc., but as I've grown older I don't have as much faith in these things. When I was in my early twenties I was quite accomplished in many mystic arts, in fact many "psychic" people seemed to view me as a powerful psychic in my own right. I had people come up to me and tell me that I had a very strong aura, it was a nice ego stroker, but I could never verify whether it was actually true. When I was nine I saw my first ghost, I witnessed my aunt standing outside my window. It scared the bejeezus out of me. I ran out my room and told my mother and father what I saw. I hadn't been to the funeral, but I was able to tell them exactly what dress she was wearing. Later on in life I could walk through a house that was "haunted" and locate cold spots where people saw ghosts, without them even telling me where they saw the ghosts. Later on as I explored the metaphysical world more I found I was able to do many "psychic" things. I was able to astral travel the first time I attempted it. On another occasion I was able to look at a picture and while viewing that picture send that image telepathically to my brother who was in another room. He had no knowledge of the book I was using or the image, but described it in almost perfect detail. For awhile I was able to have someone tell me something or someone they were looking for and actually point out where that person or thing was on a map. As a hypnotist I was able to hypnotize people who supposedly couldn't be hypnotized within a few weeks of learning the discipline. In fact I had many incidents where I would be hypnotizing one person in a room and someone else would also end up hypnotized as well. Since I was very little I've had issues with street lamps, when ever I go for a walk one seems to always go out as I go underneath it, this happens even when I'm driving. When I was in my late teens and suffering from anxiety I would oftentimes get upset and the light bulb in the room I was in would blow out. On one occasion a fluorescent light bulb actually shattered into pieces. I used to think it was some dark force following me that caused this to happen, but later on I changed my mind about this. In the end I realized that much of this isn't psychic potential or power, so much as it is most likely my unconscious awareness of what people are thinking by gauging their use of body language and such, in response my own mind developed phenomena to support what I'm figuring out unconsciously. The street light thing is most likely just something I tend to be hyper aware of, I think it probably happens to most people when they go for a walk. I've never been able to explain why I was able to do other things, but I do feel that there is a reasonable answer and if I ever spent time looking for the answer, I'd find it. Nowadays I don't care so much about this stuff. I don't try to sense ghosts, read peoples thoughts, or locate things that are missing. It doesn't interest me anymore, in fact I realized it caused me to feel somewhat alien in a sense. I'm much happier exploring those things that seem to help me understand my place in the world, rather than focus on things that have no rational explanation and can't be proven (for instance I can't intentionally make a light bulb go out). Now I offer this experience, not to discourage you, but rather to remind you that in the grand scheme of things, if one is looking for a greater awareness of the world around them, even though these types of actions might seem to grant you a greater awareness, they in fact can distract you from that greater awareness. In fact it was only after I started to give up these esoteric practices and pursue a greater understanding of Tao, that I was able to find peace in my life. Again, there's no reason why one can't pursue these activities, but I would also kindly recommend that one be aware of what they seek from these types of practices and whether or not what they seek is what they actually need in their lives. Often times we believe that these types of abilities make us special, when in fact they don't. I sincerely believe that psychic ability is more attuned to belief than it is actual skill. If one truly believes that something can be done, then the mind will allow them to do it, or at least allow them to believe they're doing it. Aaron

Hello folks, I'm not altogether convinced that aliens have visited earth, in the past or the present. I used to be more prone to admit that it's possible, but that faded 2 years after X-Files went off the air and it was no longer quite so mysterious and adventurous for me. Now if you ask me do I think that it's likely that there is other intelligent life in this universe? I will say yes, but again, I don't think they've come to this planet. As far as spiritual beings and such, most early religions believed in spirits. This seems quite astounding that there was a sort of almost universal agreement that there was a spiritual world. I don't think shamanistic cultures are completely to credit, I think, perhaps, that this is more evidence of a religion that predates anything we know and that the ideas of that religion carried on and perhaps one of those ideas was that there is a spiritual force within everything? Anyways, it's fascinating stuff, for me at least. Aaron

Hello Everything, I meditated everyday for nearly 20 years using the same method. I sat in a lazy lotus position (I have bad knees so I can't do a full lotus) and just focused on my breath in and out. I would try to still my mind of thoughts, instead paying attention to my breath, until I was able to reach a state of silence. It takes awhile to be able to reach that state of silence, but once you start practicing and do it enough you can reach that state quite quickly. With that said, there are different methods of meditation, so I would suggest reading up on the topic. Some people do meditate on words or use mantras, the purpose isn't quite the same as focusing on breath, rather it's used when one desires to meditate on a specific topic or focus. Again, I would suggest trying to figure out what you want to get out of meditating. Another area of meditation that's useful is using self-hypnosis. With self-hypnosis you can do some pretty amazing things, including pain management, biometrics, etc. (It's not just used to quit smoking anymore.) In fact they're using hypnosis in lieu of anesthesia in surgery these days. I would just be wary of a lot of the self-help new age stuff out there, because it's not based on sound principles and seems to be focused on achievement rather than greater awareness of one's self. Aaron

Hello Manitou, I understand what you're saying. I don't honestly believe in alien intelligence, at least not any that have visited earth. I think if there is an advanced intelligence here on Earth, it's the remnants of a previously advanced human culture, although I don't hold any faith to this notion either. For me, it's not so much about UFOs or ancient relics, as pure common sense. Why would we be on this Earth for so long and only be able to achieve the scientific nohow that we have once? For me, it seems preposterous to assume that it takes a race 200,000 years to create harpoons, pottery, etc. then another 47,000 years to develop advanced mathematics, then 6,000 years to develop the atom bomb. I think that the problem, as I stated previously, is that if there was an advanced civilization, it existed well over 15,000 years ago (maybe upwards of 100,000 years). Finding any archaeological evidence from that long ago is slim and even if we did, identifying it as such would be problematic. I think the easiest way to figure this out is to research the civilizations that have arisen and see what they have to say about this idea. The notion of Gods is interesting, in that they almost always have a human appearance. Of course this might be hubris and stem from the idea that we believe that any super-powerful deity would obviously be created in our image, but it might also be a clue to a previous civilization that helped mankind in certain ways. Mathematics, science, medicine, etc. in many cultures were considered to be gifts from the gods, in fact many of these cultures seemed to believe that the god's taught these skills to men. Maybe they weren't god's at all, but rather men from an advanced culture? If one finds this hard to believe, they need only look at the Aztecs. When they first encountered the Spanish, they believed they were gods. I know it's far fetched, but I think within the next 20 years our notions of human history will change dramatically, especially with the recent discovery of cities and such that seem to predate our original estimates for the foundation of historical civilizations and cities. Aaron

Recently I've been inundated with people who take a portion of a text and rather than present it as it was intended, use it to prove a point or argument that has no basis on the original intent. Most of the time it happens with people who call themselves something without understanding what it is in the first place. I believe in compassion and being compassionate, but is allowing someone to continue to be ignorant of a greater truth, by presenting that truth in a way that supports their own beliefs compassionate? I think it is. Context isn't the problem really, the problem is insensitivity. If I allow my own beliefs to cloud other people's beliefs, to push my own views as the true views, then what I'm doing is trying to control what people think and say. The validity in an argument isn't necessarily important. What's important is what's being said. When we focus exclusively on the validity and not the meaning, then we miss out on what's being said. I am much more inclined to listen to someone who is off base but has good intentions than I am someone who is right on the mark, but bitter and arrogant. It seems like we live in a world where being right has become more important than caring and understanding what other people are trying to say. If I come across as harsh sometimes, it's not because I don't care about someone else, but rather because the other person doesn't seem to care about people. We all have different opinions, ideas, and beliefs, but underneath it all we are all human. When I forget that I am dealing with a human being and instead see only a moralist, taoist, or bigot, then I have forgotten what I am. I feel that there is a line that must be drawn, one that shows us that being insensitive and cruel is not only harmful to others, but to ourselves, but in the same way, once that line is drawn it should be erased. In order for people to honestly understand each other and themselves, they must first understand what they are at a basic level. We each crave the same things at birth, simple things, but as we grow older, because of what we are taught and raised to believe we forgot the simple things in life. When a child is born, they do not see color or race or creed. A person isn't a scientist or janitor. I remember my son called every man he saw daddy for several months and it drove me nuts, but it illustrates a point. For him every man was the same. I think the key to understanding each other is first accepting each other for who we are. As Lao Tzu said, the sage teaches by his actions, not his words. If we each behave in a way that mirrors what we actually believe, and what we believe is in the potential of the human race, then the only thing that can come from that is good. Aaron

Hehehe... I laughed. This deserves a smiley face Aaron

I like to check out the people I have discussions with and 9th says that he is the 9th of Shemsu Hor (Priest of Horus). So I was interested in whether he viewed the ideas surrounding Heka as being similar to Taoism. To be honest I never realized that you were a fan of Egyptology as well. (I know! I know! You have hieroglyphics in your tag, and Maa' Kheru in your group name, shoot me...) So perhaps you'd care to elaborate on your own ideas? Aaron

Hello folks, I watched the youtube episodes and I was amazed at the various discoveries made underwater. It makes sense that if they were to find ancient civilizations the best place to look would be underwater given the fact that with the decline of the last ice age the water level rose. It would seem to me that the various structures would be hard pressed to be classified as natural formations. I'm surprised that modern archaeologists are having such a hard time admitting that these ruins could be from previous civilizations or at most cities that predate recorded history. I think they will continue to doubt unless they find actual proof of human habitation. With that said, I don't think they were alien in origin. My own theory is that the knowledge passed down was not from ancient aliens, but from the remnants of humanity that died out. I've heard of the glass fields before and the other programs seemed to link them to meteors, but the idea that they could have been nuclear explosions seems plausible. The added evidence of ancient remains apparently being exposed to radiation seems to add weight to that argument. Again the question remains, why would a species that has been on the earth for at least 200,000 years, one that was able to reach the technological level that we are today in less than 5,000 years of recorded history, only be able to achieve that level of knowledge once in that span of time? The other question and the one that brought my musings to mind in the first place was the ancient Egyptian civilization. It seems to have been fully formed and functional from the earliest records we have. There was little deviation in the religion, language, or culture for over 3,000 years. How could a civilization just appear out of nowhere that technologically evolved? I think the answer is that it didn't, rather there has been no record of it existing prior to that time. The case of India is even more interesting in that they believe that the Indian civilization has existed for over 100,000 years. Again I think the problem archaeologically speaking is that ruins from that long ago can easily be dismissed as natural phenomena, so we're missing the links to the past. Anyways, this is musing, not necessarily belief, but still I am interested in learning more. If one goes further and looks at it from a philosophical level the simple fact that multiple cultures held the same belief in duality and also a permeating energy that exists within the universe, that evolved from a vacuum or emptiness (something that I think science is pointing to now) adds weight to the theory that perhaps at one time there was a universal religion that eventually devolved into various other belief systems. Anyways, rather than go on, I'll wait to see what others have to say. Aaron

Hello Otis, I would never feed your ego too much. I want to keep it small so it doesn't get so big that it might swallow me up in one bite. Aaron

Hello 9th, When we both reach the place within us where there resides only compassion, love, integrity, and trust, then we are both one, neither master or student. Aaron

Thank you for the words of encouragement. Aaron

Hello 9th, I really didn't get any of that from that song. I wish you luck on your journey. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would suggest that you study a bit more, you've got the basic ideas of what your espousing down, but you've yet to learn to practice them. I think in time, perhaps when you gain a bit more wisdom, you will find that it will come naturally. Remember dimensions are an illusion, there is only one reality. From whence all things come, all things return. When you open you eyes and see nothing, then you will see everything. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, I was just thinking of chapter 7 of the Tao Teh Ching, the translations of the chapter vary, but the common idea is that the sage, by putting himself last, finds himself first. For me, this means that we should be last. Also the one who gets shot is most often the straggler, the one who doesn't stay with the group, not necessarily the one who is last in line. Aaron

Hello Penny, I think someone can share someone's understanding without believing in what that person believes. Compassion to me isn't simply understanding that someone might not share your views, but rather understanding that others have a right to their own views. I think the Sage will generally not care so much about what other people believe, but rather how he treats other people. Aaron

Hello 9th, I'm not sure what you intended to do here. I thought, since you are the 9th of Shemsu Hor that you might be interested in learning that the ancient Egyptian's actually had a fundamental understanding of Tao, if perhaps in an unorthodox way. Their understanding of Heka as the creation force of the universe was very similar to how Taoists view the Tao. In fact Heka was the force that existed before duality was created, so they also had a deep understanding of the nature of duality and the emptiness that created everything. Interesting stuff. Also Heka could be closely related to the idea of Qi in Chinese philosophy. It is the underlying force that exists within the universe. The Egyptians believed that man could harness this force to help things to happen. I think it more closely translates as "the means by which to make things happen indirectly." Honestly I haven't studied Egyptian mythology and "magic" in ages, so I'm a bit rusty in that regards. It is interesting stuff though. I'd be interested in learning what brought you to The Tao Bums and whether or not you see it in a similar way. Aaron Edit- One thing to keep in mind is that the Egyptian Empire/Civilization actually existed for well over 3,000 years. I'm not sure, but I think it could be counted as the longest continuous culture in historical records. It really didn't fall into decline until around the end of the 4th century when the Roman Emperor Theodosius (who was Christian) banned pagan rituals and closed the temples.

Hello Starjumper, When I say words are all we have, I echo the teachings of many masters (not that I am one), that have understood that people commonly need encouragement, and that in order to encourage people, one oftentimes needs to express some sort of semblance of an idea to them and in many cases the only way to do that is to express the idea in words. My point is that oftentimes the message is not on the surface, but lays below the surface. It is not necessarily in the silence between words, but in the entirety of what's being said. In regards to your comment about awareness, I'm not sure if I follow completely, but I do agree that there is a type of awareness that exists only when the mind is silent and thoughts do not cloud it. In that regard, many people do have this illusion that what they're experiencing is a deep spiritual awareness, when in fact it's more akin to an epiphany. Aaron

Hello Strawdog, I'm not sure if I would consider this a Taoist attitude. I argued the same thing elsewhere and the majority of Taoists tend to follow along the lines of the Moralist. I would say this is more in tune with the anarchist attitude. With that said, Taoism has a long history of valuing morality and virtue. Most traditional Taoist in China would probably be equally shocked if they heard what Smullyan advocated (perhaps even a bit angry that he is presenting it as Taoism). With that said, many Western 20th century Neo-Taoists tend to follow along the lines of Smullyan (me included) except I would also make the point that if one is raised in moralistic society, to view right and wrong, they can't simply forget what they've been taught and behave in a natural way without working towards returning to a natural way of behaving. This requires understanding one's self and realizing that the id, superego, and ego are merely constructs, much the same as our definition of who we are. So to sum up my own thoughts, Taoism as a philosophy practiced by the majority of Taoists is very much a moralistic philosophy, in part because Taoism, as it's practiced by the majority of Taoists is also a religion that advocates actions that are outside of what's found in the basic texts we all know and love (the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu to be exact). There are literally thousands of tracts that are a part of the Taoist religious cannon that dictate, not only what is right and wrong, but the consequences of doing something wrong (consequences handed down by the higher powers in fact). If you want to discuss this in regards to strictly the philisophical principles of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, I would say that both of them have given the examples of the Sages as a means for us to understand what should be done, but leave it to ourselves to find out why it should be done. As an afterthought, this isn't an actual conversation that's taking place, but rather a moral play. Aaron

Hello Easy, Let me address a few things. First kudos on your masterful machiavellian plan to lure me into your intellectual trap. I thought that perhaps you were getting desperate and making things up as you go along, but I can obviously see now how incredibly intelligent you are. Now that I'm aware of your greatness, let me be the first to thank you for humbling yourself so much that you might share your infinite wisdom with us. I know it must hurt to mingle with the mediocre masses. Second, you are absolutely wrong in your assumption that Buddhism is superstitious. Let me explain why. First we shall actually define superstition, rather than toss the word around... the actual definition is as follows. 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. 2. a system or collection of such beliefs. 3. a custom or act based on such a belief. 4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion. 5. any blindly accepted belief or notion. Now, as one who has spent the last six months researching Buddhism, one thing I can assure you is that, although there may be some belief in mythology, the basis of the philosophy requires one, not to blindly follow the philosophy, (i.e. the actual four noble truths and the eightfold path), but rather suggests that one practices Buddhism and comes to their own conclusion. Unlike the other two religions that you mentioned, Buddhism does not require one to practice Buddhism, nor does it guarantee anything if one does, rather it lays down a proposed course of action and also the possible results if one follows that course. In fact Buddhists actually have put a great deal of time into basing their ideas on reason and knowledge, rather than speculation. What they talk about is not something that is hypothetical to them, but the result of their actual experience. Since this experience has been shared by countless buddhists (thousands at least, perhaps hundreds of thousands over the course of time) with very little variation, I would suggest that it is an actual experience, rather than superstitious phenomena. One thing I admire the Buddhists for is there tolerance of others. I've never heard a Buddhist tell someone they're going to hell because they don't believe in Buddha, nor have I ever heard a Buddhist tell someone they'll have 40 virgins in heaven if they become a martyr. Comparing a religion that teaches the virtues of kindness, compassion, and tolerance, with religions that express a great deal of bigotry and hatred, doesn't make sense to me, and seems to be an attempt to provoke people, rather than make a valid and logical comparison. Third, I don't respect people who resort to name calling or insinuation in an attempt to prove their points. To me it's a sign that someone's ego is being hurt and they're lashing out in an attempt to stroke that ego and reduce the pain suffered. I would suggest in the future, at least if you want to carry on discussing this with me, that you refrain from calling me names or insinuating things, it's rude and childish to the extreme. I would suggest that you stop believing that you have the answers, because you don't. You are a young man who has gotten a bit of knowledge and now believes that he knows something. An older man knows much and realizes he knows nothing. Some day you'll understand that and then perhaps you'll be less apt to make sensational proclamations and more apt to have a sensible conversation. Aaron edit- I am fully aware that I am insinuating that you are arrogant, but I felt sarcasm was justified under the circumstances.

Hello Starjumper, I Think there are absolutes, they're just very relative. Aaron

I sometimes think we're all blind, we just don't know it. Aaron

Hello Easy, You're exact words are... I hope that clarifies my reply to your comment for you. I replied to your comment with what you said previously in mind. Another point I would like to make is that the idea of linking Buddhists with the Taliban and Tennessee Snake Handling Christian Fundamentalists seems a bit of a stretch. I know that you feel that I'm "levering in my (sic)" comment in order to add weight to it, I apologize if that seems like what I'm doing, rather I was making a statement about what I felt was an absurd and unrealistic comparison. Aaron