Aaron

Too cool... It's funny, I've actually been discussing most of this with a friend of mine.

An interesting thing I learned is that the iron in our bodies is the same iron that was around when the big bang occurred, so we're literally billions of years old in a sense.

Aaron

i think atheists and agnostics have the same problems with aggressive tendencies.

 

maybe the problem is with human nature and not with religion.

That just absolves religion of blame, it doesn't really solve the problem or even address it. If one is okay with a religion being the foundation of a culture and society, then they should also be okay with placing blame on that religion if its done something wrong.

Aaron

I am not sure how historically accurate this is and it is purely from meomory. I read it ages ago somewhere. That Shakyamuni Buddha himself said something along the lines that even he couldn't purify the warlike karma of the Shakya clan.

 

Shakyamuni Buddha was quite a high level person as you know. So if even his attainment couldn't stop his own family from warring how much less would our puny accomplishments?

 

Karma is karma.

Most Buddhist abhor violence, yet they also understand that violence is a part of this world. Buddha actually was against violence and encouraged rulers to live in peace with one another. The problem is that there is also a complicity in most Buddhist countries, where the religion can come under attack from the government if it defies their national objective. Historically speaking most Buddhist Temples will either stay out of it or if they are forced, tactfully accept it. Just look at the Dalai Lama's sanctioning of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. The Dalai Lama was under intense political pressure to support the act, even though there is nothing to support it in the teachings of Buddha. Violence, after all, begets more violence.

This isn't my personal opinion in regards to the assassination, I wasn't opposed to it, I'm just using it at as an example.

Aaron

 

if your 'deity' commands you to kill your own kid, I'd say you have a very serious psychological problem.

 

________________

 

 

(and it's even more serious when abraham actually goes along with it) ....

I don't think you've read the entire original post. The major gist of it was that ALL RELIGIONS have propagated war, so what do we do about it?

Aaron

I understand this has been a recent topic, but it was discussing a singular form of anarchy, Taoist anarchy and what I wanted to discuss was the more generalized idea of anarchy.

If you don't understand what anarchy is, the most basic definition is allowing others to live as they see fit, so long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's life.

I wont go much more in depth with it than that, but I would like people to explain why they answered yes or no, or even maybe. I think this is a healthy topic, because even if we cannot have a worldwide anarchic existence, we can cultivate our own individual anarchic existence. So what do you think?

Aaron

Nope; one can experience pain and not learn a thing from it. It CAN be a wake up call and it can also be a hindrance. Not NECESSARY. Many people do just fine without it. It certainly can be a motivating factor, if needed for any particular person at any particular time, but not necessarily necessary.

"Getting it is a pleasant surprise,"

IF pain is in our lives we should attempt to learn from it and not use mental masturbation of indulgence as in "poor poor pitiful me..." If you really think "a pleasant surprise" of pain is such a good thing I have a hammer that does a really good job of giving one pain - don't ask me how I know - do you want to borrow it for your very own "pleasant surprise"? I was enlightened by it! (several cuss words which were bound to weigh something left my body).

You're missing the point, and perhaps it was my fault for not explaining it as well as I should've. Here is chapter 13 again...

"Welcome disgrace as a pleasant surprise.

Prize calamities as your own body."

Why should we "welcome disgrace as a pleasant

surprise"?

Because a lowly state is a boon:

Getting it is a pleasant surprise,

And so is losing it!

That is why we should "welcome disgrace as a pleasant

surprise."

Why should we "prize calamities as our own body"?

Because our body is the very source of our calamities.

If we have no body, what calamities can we have?

Hence, only he who is willing to give his body for the

sake of the world is fit to be entrusted with the world.

Only he who can do it with love is worthy of being the

steward of the world. -John C. H. Wu

We welcome disgrace because it is an opportunity to grow. We prize calamities as our own body because it reminds us that we are alive. Only someone who understands the principles of suffering, the nature of suffering, is worthy of being entrusted the care of others, because that person has sympathy for others. This sympathy, when born out of compassion, not for the sake of morality, but rather the desire to ease the suffering of others, is the reason why they are worthy of being the steward of the world.

This is the fundamental difference between Taoism and Buddhism and the major reason why Zen Buddhist deviate in their understanding of compassion. The majority of Buddhists believe that the highest form of compassion can only come from detachment from the world, when one has ceased to suffer, Taoists believe the highest form of compassion can only come from an understanding of one's own suffering.

The nature of suffering is not an abstract quality and it is not different from pain, that's just semantics. Suffering is the result of pain, which by definition is an unpleasant experience, the two cannot exist without each other. Suffering does not exist without pain, just as joy does not exist without pleasure.

Our emotional pain is every bit as real as our physical pain and cause infinitely more suffering, that's a fact. Ask anyone who has suffered from depression. What many people fail to understand is the necessity of pain in one's growth. If a child never experiences suffering, then they will never grow to be a compassionate person. It is experiencing pain, then relating that experience to someone else's suffering that allows them to cultivate compassion for others. This is why it's so important to allow children to grieve and to fail in life, because failure is a welcome state, because it gives us an opportunity to learn, then it also gives us the opportunity to rise above that state, which can be a joyous occasion.

When one claims that they can end their suffering, then you might consider the argument regarding the hammer, but I wouldn't go that far, rather I would urge them to question why they feel the need to be free from suffering? Suffering is transient, it ends when we die, but until that day we will experience suffering and joy.

Yes joy and suffering are linked and the same thing, but it is understanding the nature of joy and suffering that allows us to ease our own suffering, but again, we will never be entirely free from it so long as we reside on this Earth as human beings.

Suffering is a very natural process and there is no need try and add existential qualities that don't exist, merely for the sake of sounding smart and mystical. It's the same with psychology, we've become a society that fails to appreciate suffering. Perhaps it's the reason so few of us actually learn from it anymore, we're too focused on the quick fix.

Aaron

I thought it might be interesting to examine the historical implications of warfare as it relates to ancient religions many consider to be pacifistic in nature. The notion escaped me for the most part until I did some digging and found numerous accounts of warfare being supported by these same religious institution. If it had been a passing notion, one or two incidents, I would've thought that this was just a random occurrence, but what I found instead was a pathology of religion, if not overtly, covertly supporting violence for the sake of their own nation or religion.

My examination is meant to be impartial, but at times it's very hard to be impartial when one hears some of the things that have occurred and been sanctioned by the monastic and religious hierarchy. Perhaps starting with the most recent account in modern history would be a good start and to do that we need to go to Sri Lanka where the state, which calls itself a Buddhist nation is committing genocide against the indigenous Tamil minority that has been seeking independence. Atrocities abound, entire towns laid to waste, children and women raped and killed, all sanctioned by the Theravada Buddhists Church that backs the country.

Now to be honest, they're not advocating the rape and murder of innocents, but at the same time they're not speaking out against it either, rather they are supporting the regime full well knowing what is happening, all because they fear that the Tamil might gain control over the nation and banish Buddhism. This is something that's occurring in the here and now, yet most people will never hear about it, and Buddhists refuse to address it, yet it is happening, and the war has yet to end, even though concessions could be made to end it, if one side had compassion for the other.

If this seems like an isolated incident, it isn't, Shaku Soen, a well known Zen Master and the teacher of D. T. Suzuki, was one of the first to advocate war as a form of Zen training. In Zen Holy War, Josh Baron examines this relationship, perhaps the most chilling quote from the book comes from Soen himself when he says, "I wished to inspire our valiant soldiers with the ennobling thoughts of the Buddha, so as to enable them to die on the battlefield with confidence that the task in which they are engaged is great and noble. I wish to convince them.... that this war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating an evil."

Baron goes on to say that, "From Soen's point of view, since everything was one essence, war and peace were identical. Everything reflected the glory of Buddha, including war. And since the Buddha's main purpose was to subjugate evil, and since the enemy of Japan was inherently evil, war against evil was the essence of Buddhism. "In the present hostilities," Soen wrote, "into which Japan has entered with great reluctance, she pursues no egotistic purpose, but seeks the subjugation of evils hostile to civilization, peace and enlightenment." (Japan's invasion of Russia was entirely self-serving and hardly reluctant.). To Soen, war was " an inevitable step toward the final realization of enlightenment.""

Baron uses the research of Brian Victoria for much of his discussion regarding the Zen complicity in the war effort, amongst the most disturbing of Victoria's findings were the comments made by Sawaki Kodo, one of the great Soto Zen patriarchs of this century. Kodo said that he and his comrades "gorged ourselves on killing people." Victoria includes a later quote from 1942 where Kodo wrote, "It is just to punish those who disturb the public order. Whether one kills or does not kill, the precept forbidding killing [is preserved]. It is the precept forbidding killing that wields the sword. It is the precept that throws the bomb."

Victoria continues to examine Kodo's explanation, in which Kodo essentially states that if one kills in a state of Zen or no-mind, then that act comes from a state of enlightenment. He wasn't the only one, in fact many of the Zen Masters at the time stated the same thing, and why wouldn't they? If they had not supported the war effort their temples would've most certainly been shut down, the monks sent back to the lay practice or other monasteries that did support the war.

The most reprehensible of this support was to come in during what has become known as the Rape of Nanking. During the capture of Nanking on December 13th, 1937, the Japanese raped, killed, and tortured over 350,000 Chinese. It's still considered one of the most brutal acts of war ever perpetrated by man. Nazi officers present during the invasion actually left the battlefield, unable to watch the brutality.

The horrors didn't end on one day though, the Japanese continued to kill the Chinese populace indiscriminately, and the Buddhist religious officiated much of it, watching and condoning the actions, even supporting the state held sentiment that the Chinese were lesser human beings, even less so than dogs and cats. To put this in perspective, more people died in Nanking, raped, tortured, and killed, than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, all under the auspice of the Buddhist monks and Masters. Afterward they used Chinese children as target practice, there are even accounts of boys being lined up to be used for bayonet practice, and officers beheading Chinese men in order to demonstrate the "proper way to behead a man."

I could go on, but I don't think many of us would have the stomach for much more, suffice it to say that it took nearly 50 years before the Zen temples were willing to admit their complicity and also the nature of their acts. Hopefully it's a lesson well learned.

Before you say, "well that was just the Zen Buddhists!" It might be wise to look further into the past, back to the 17th century, when we find out exactly how the Gelug-pa sect came to rule under the Fifth Dalai Lama. Derek Maher, in an article, explains that the Fifth Dalai Lama praised the Khoshut Mongol ruler, Gushri Khan, in part because the Khan eliminated and supressed the other Buddhist sects in Tibet, helping his own sect come to power. Although not as brutal as what Japanese did during the first half of the 20th century, it's no less disturbing.

I could stop there, but there is much more to address, enough to fill volumes in fact, the Ch' ang Buddhist support and aid of the Maoist government during the Korean War is another modern example, as is the Theravada Buddhist Temples support against the Muslim insurgency in Southern Thailand. The similarities between the two different factions is eerily common, both groups provided lodging for the military, and it wasn't uncommon for the monks to participate in active military duty. To the best of my knowledge the Buddhists in both countries still support these actions to this day, under the auspice of compassion.

This shouldn't eliminate other religions from their own complicity, of course, I have chosen to use the Buddhist traditions as an example, because for many of us, Buddhism seems to be completely antithetical to the concepts of war.

Taoism has a long and bloody history as well, in fact it had less compulsions about waging war than the Ch'ang Buddhists seemed to have. Both historically supported war, particularly against oppressive rulers, but oftentimes supporting oppressive rulers when it seemed fit.

The Hindu, another religion most consider to be peace loving, is not without it's own bloody history, with numerous conflicts arising over the last 2,000 years, many of them quite bloody. Even today it's not uncommon for one to hear of a riot occurring in which the Hindus attack the Muslims or visa versa.

I didn't write this to point fingers at any one religion, in fact I left out the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and other Eastern Religions, because we are all to familiar as it is with their own bloody histories, rather I wrote this in the attempt to make people aware of the complicity of religion in warfare, how a supposedly righteous and pure ideology can turn evil and sour, if that religion comes under attack by others.

We should never forget that religions are abstract concepts, nor that ideas alone are not worth the loss of human life. So long as we value the religion itself over the value of another's life, this will continue. So long as we turn a blind eye to the capacity of man's evil, even under the supervision of the "righteous" we will continue to perpetrate evil acts in the name of compassion.

Aaron

First differentiating between suffering and pain is somewhat difficult, because pain does cause one to suffer and one cannot suffer unless one first experiences emotional or physical pain.

Some things that come to mind when you talk about pain:

Pain is the touchstone of change.

Man is oftentimes a stubborn creature, refusing to change unless something unpleasant directs them to want to change, in this example pain is beneficial, because it causes one to try to better their lives. The highest spiritual practitioners have all been influenced by suffering to some degree.

Diminishing one's desires reduces the causes of suffering.

If one diminishes one's desires and focuses on their needs, rather than their wants, then they are far less apt to experience suffering. This is true for most philosophies. It's one of the reasons why greed is looked down upon, because it invariably leads to suffering, whether it is the greedy person suffering because they cannot get enough, or they cause others to suffer because they take what they have.

Sympathy for others leads to a greater awareness of one's purpose.

In nearly every philosophy and religion, sympathy, whether you call it compassion or love, is of paramount importance when one is developing a spiritual nature. This is the reason why you find very few racists, bigots, thieves, and murderers amongst the saints of the world's religions. Understanding the nature of suffering precludes these things, because in understanding suffering, you understand the direct link you have to all things. This is why the sage puts others before himself and the Buddha taught the need for compassion for all things. This isn't just an Eastern idea either, in fact Judaism and Christianity are founded upon these principles as well. It seems that the one underlying truth that we all seem to be aware of is the need to help our fellow man in order to help ourselves.

-----

Anyways, this is an interesting topic, but one that can be misunderstood, especially with people trying to avoid pain. Pain is necessary, as others have stated, because it allows us to appreciate our lives. I think the Tao Teh Ching explains this quite well in chapter 13 which state:

"Welcome disgrace as a pleasant surprise.

Prize calamities as your own body."

Why should we "welcome disgrace as a pleasant

surprise"?

Because a lowly state is a boon:

Getting it is a pleasant surprise,

And so is losing it!

That is why we should "welcome disgrace as a pleasant

surprise."

Why should we "prize calamities as our own body"?

Because our body is the very source of our calamities.

If we have no body, what calamities can we have?

Hence, only he who is willing to give his body for the

sake of the world is fit to be entrusted with the world.

Only he who can do it with love is worthy of being the

steward of the world. -John C. H. Wu

Aaron

Ive been having some really intense spiritual experiences recently. Such significantly altered states of consciousness, without any drugs--just QI. I feel almost traumatized, I dont know what the hell to grab on to. Ive dissolved, no familiar "me" that I knew for all of my life. And then the "me" comes back, but its not the same. If everybody had these kind of experiences, the world would be a completely different place. How do you process this? It makes me feel sick coming back to my old dreams and aspirations when I know that there is so much more to reality than what I thought.

 

Is this 2012 shit, or have these abilities always been available to humans?

In many years of meditation I have found one thing to be true, that regardless of what I learn and experience I always return to this world. The Zen Buddhists have a phrase that many disparage and belittle, but it talks about what you're experiencing and was meant to explain this process of existence that we can't deny, "before enlightenment we chop wood and carry water, after enlightenment we chop wood and carry water."

Many people will lead you to believe that once you've achieved a degree of awareness that you will transcend this world, but the fact of the matter is that no matter what you experience, so long as your consciousness continues to reside on this Earth, don't believe for a second that you have transcended the menial tasks that take up your day. You will still eat, drink, work, and sleep. You will still have desires and wants, the only difference is that if you continue to practice you may see through the facade of the world as you see it and view it as it really is.

All is one and one is all. Simple as that. Now will you stop thinking of the one and concentrate on the all? Or do you understand that everything the one is can be found in the all and everything in the all can be found in the one?

Remember the three jewels at this time and that will help you. Be compassionate, be aware of what you really need, so that you can differentiate between needs and wants, and finally stop competing with others, rather live so that you can meet your needs and then in meeting your needs, meet other's needs as well. This is a wise thing for everyone to remember, but sometimes we need a kick in the pants in order to get back on the right track, that's compassion too.

Aaron

Ok thanks guys.

 

Once again - I'm not actually looking for diet tips. I have a good diet.

 

It's exercise tips...

 

Anyway pretty much decided on Tai Chi unless anyone can persuade me otherwise.

If you're overweight, then how can you have a good diet? A good diet means you're eating as much food as you need. Even if you're eating healthy foods, if you're eating too much, that can cause you to gain weight, so perhaps what you need to do is eat less. Before making any changes to your diet, I should add that you should talk to your doctor.

Anyways if you want to be able to continue to eat as much as you do now, then you will certainly have to do some form of aerobic exercise if you expect to lose weight. Tai Chi, Qi-Gong, and most energy style martial art practices aren't going to cut it, because the emphasis is on slow movements, rather than movements that cause you to burn calories. I used to do walking meditation, which might help you with your practice and your exercise. Just something to think about. In the end you should choose something you enjoy doing, if you can, so that you'll be more likely to stick with it in the long run.

Aaron

Hi there,

 

I've been practising standing/moving Qigong for about 40mins every morning followed by a meditation.

 

I'm a few stone overweight and as much as I'm enjoying the Qigong it's not helping me shed the excess.

 

Can anyone suggest a further practise that would contribute to weight loss?

 

I'm not adverse to running or yoga, I just want to pick something that's in balance with the Qigong and not putting unnecessary pressure on the organs/joints.

 

Lunchtimes are wide open for me right now. I could probably do an hours session of something so would be up for taking on something completely new. I quite fancy Tai Chi in fact.

 

But over to you, what else should I add to my routine?

I lost around 60 pounds in six months by eliminating unhealthy snack foods and soda period (not even diet soda, because it has hidden calories). I don't necessarily watch what I eat anymore, I just try to maintain healthy portions, which in the end I think is hardest thing to do, but most beneficial.

My rule of thumb when I was dieting was to cut back on calories til I started losing weight, then maintain that amount of food so long as I continued to, once I plateaued, I ate a little less again. At the end I got down to around 200 pounds from 268lbs, relatively pain free. I'm up to 209 now, but I tend to stay around 205, fluctuating up and down. (Oh I know that sounds like a lot of weight, but I'm actually 6'2" tall and have a large build.)

Aaron

So I've come to you all today with not really a statement or a question. I hate almost everything I perceive happening in reality right now, and have been so for a bit over a year, yes I "know" there is no "I" but still. It isn't that I am unhappy or not content, it is just much work for my soul garden. How ever let me say 2-3 years before that I began changing dramatically as a individual in my pursuit for happiness. In this pursuit I found love, acceptance, peace and humility in Daoism. I've also been training in Tai Chi to help my understanding of what is Daoism. I am 22 now so really, awakening to what is for me started about 4-5 years ago though I have always had a hint of Zen.

 

Now I check this website quite frequently and other resources ancient and new, I read all types of information I can from trusted sources to untrusted. I mean with the internet "knowledge" has become the most utilized tool to gain limited understanding in almost any subject or of any object. How ever all I see is hate. All I see is I'm right your wrong and "I can't tell you"

 

I can accept a many great things and will continue to how ever I agree with the international elites are going to do with this world, I just don't agree with how they are going about it. Deception, and unfortunately I experience that that deception has found it's way into everything and nothing.

 

It's very troubling to see the blind leading the blind, yet not one righteous enlightened soul will step up to the plate maybe because he or she isn't "allowed". Ever since I was young, I knew that there was a right and there was a wrong. I'm not saying I am right and some of you will probably see some of my ways of thought "at least with what you've read" as wrong as well. But I guess I haven't met the right person yet ;]

 

"So just remember next time others don't understand, they see the world from beneath the pond, they only know whats in the water. And to try too explain to them that all they are seeing is shadow, well only a few will come to shore with you and sit by the bank.

 

And would it be as absolutely precious otherwise?" ~Old Hermit

 

"If you know anything, know that you know nothing" ~Socrates

 

"Some say that my teaching is nonsense.

Others call it lofty but impractical.

But to those who have looked inside themselves,

this nonsense makes perfect sense.

And to those who put it into practice,

this loftiness has roots that go deep.

 

I have just three things to teach:

simplicity, patience, compassion.

These three are your greatest treasures.

Simple in actions and in thoughts,

you return to the source of being.

Patient with both friends and enemies,

you accord with the way things are.

Compassionate toward yourself,

you reconcile all beings in the world." ~Chapter 67 of Dao De Jing

 

Thank you for reading my thoughts

Hello Geoball,

I think the distinct issue here has to do with the world and you. You seem to believe the world is the one with the issues, but in my experience the vast majority of people do not hate the world, so perhaps you should examine whether or not your problem stems from within yourself.

Practicing Tai Chi is fine and good, but it is worthless if you are not actually practicing what's being taught within the Tao Te Ching, which is compassion, never striving to be first in the world, and frugality. The first thing to remember is that simplicity and frugality are worlds apart. Nothing in the Tao Te Ching says you have to eat rice everyday or not own a car, that's all supposition. The same goes for never striving to be first and humility. Humility means that you don't consider yourself to be any better or worse than anyone else, but it has nothing to do with competition, which is where the majority of strife occurs in one's life. You can be as prideful as you want to be, the key is not competing with others, nor trying to control them.

"I'm the greatest martial artist in the world," says the Kung Fu master. Yet he refuses to fight others or compete, so he lives a simple and peaceful existence. See the difference?

It's very important when you're understanding the philosophy of Laoism and Chuangism as it relates to Taoism, that you also understand that much of what was taught to westerners regarding Taoism was influenced by Christian and Western philosophy and morality. If you want an honest translation, I find the best translations of the Tao Te Ching to read are Henricks and Wu. They seem to get down to the meat of the matter.

I think if you begin to really look into the Tao Te Ching, not just superficially reading it and going "ah ha" I got that, but rather contemplating it for some time, you'll begin to see some connections you might not have seen before. You are still rather young and you have a long way to go before you'll really be able to comprehend most of what the world has to offer. Until then don't waste your youth on piety and angst, if you don't see beauty, then look for it.

I will leave you with one final bit of wisdom. Every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth. When you understand this, then much of what you'll learn will begin to make complete sense.

Aaron

What to make then of the alleged healers who examine your past lives in order to erase bad karma from there or whatever? It's always past-lives stuff. Since you poke into something outside of normal spacetime, why no access to the future?

And even if their work is 'legit', what if you have seriously messed up karma from a future life? I guess then they can't help you.

Well I'm not sure there is such a thing as Karma or Dharma, at least nothing was mentioned about that, rather I was told we continue to be reincarnated until we learn the lesson we're supposed to learn, but the being I met never told me what that lesson was. Anyways I got the distinct impression that what we should be concentrating on is this life, rather than our previous lives (which are only "ours" in the very general sense).

Aaron

My concept of reincarnation comes from an encounter with a being in a place that I was told housed our consciousness between lives. This being was very powerful and stated that the place where consciousness goes to reside is beyond space and time and when we come back to be reincarnated, our next lives can be in the past or the future. Just be aware that he also said that we remember nothing of our previous lives, so to say it's "us" being reincarnated isn't true, since the you that you are now ceases to be at the time of reincarnation, the only thing that lives on is the capacity for consciousness within us.

Aaron

Yet comparatively is it not astonishing how few the practitioners of judaism are compared to those of its children - christianity and islam?

Why is that, or more importantly, why exactly do you think this is?

My point is that terming something mainstream isn't necessarily the truth and that perhaps, the author had preconceptions about Western civilization that colored his view on the actuality of it.

And of course that one should at least have a general knowledge of what they're criticizing, rather than one based on sound bites and a one hour lecture.

In that sense, I could very well defend Christianity and Islam, at least the generalities that have been pushed forth here, but I don't think that's necessary.

There were some great insights made in this thread, but I think the general anti-west sentiment diminishes them.

Aaron

Hello Sereneblue,

I think you're missing my point, which is that the insanity a man experiences is intrinsically connected to the cultural and societal influences that they live within. It's simply a definition of a state that is in opposition to what is considered the norm. In this sense Nietzsche was right, in that insanity in the individual does not exist, simply because it is the state of that individual and is not in opposition to anything.

I would go even further and say that much of the suffering caused by mental disorders is directly related to the social constructs that individual lives within, which is why you find some societies (especially indigineous peoples) have dramatically fewer incidents of mental illness than others.

Again Chapter 38 talks about this when it states that the further we go from our original nature, the more likely we are to suffer because of it. I think another thing we like to do is place blame on the individual, assume something is wrong with them, when in fact it's not them per se, but society as a whole that's at fault.

Thirdly, I have suffered from "insanity". I was diagnosed with clinical depression and dysthymia for nearly fifteen years. I did not break free from depression until I began to sober up in Alcoholics Anonymous. Practicing the Twelve Steps helped me to see how my suffering was directly related to my reaction towards others and that much of my suffering was caused by my own actions. It was in direct opposition to everything I had learned up until then. I'm not saying I haven't been depressed since then, but I do understand the nature of depression and how completely hopeless one can feel in that state. My belief that this is caused by society doesn't change because of this experience, rather it's deepened because of it.

I understand you may feel differently, and that's fine, but I still hold to my original explanation of what Nietzsche was alluding to, and even though he may not have been completely on the mark, he has come closer than the majority of philosophers in Western society.

Aaron

Sri Atmananda worked at a police station for many years until his retirement. A common person with high realization, he wrote his path is some of the most succinct and beautiful language I have come across.

 

http://www.heartofno...an_Nirvriti.pdf

The link is dead... just a heads up.

Aaron

edited----

I would like someone to tell me why so many Taoist's seem to be preoccupied with celibacy? I've been looking in the Tao Teh Ching, Chaung Tzu, and I-Ching and I can't find anything that seems to correspond to celibacy being required or necessary? Is this something attributed to Chinese Folk Lore?

Aaron

I'd prefer if this didn't degenerate or turn into a competition. I'd like the names of some great living practitioners.

 

 

Thanks

 

Michael

The greatest living practitioner you will ever know is yourself. So I would say you are one of the greatest living practitioners. Look within and you will not need to look for someone else.

Aaron

Hello Folks,

I wanted to point out a misconception that was being presented in this thread in regards to the Abrahamic religions, in particular Judaism. In Judaism God (YHWH) is regarded much as the Tao and Brahma. YHWH, the essence of God (which literally means The Existent One) cannot be understood or comprehended by mankind logically or intellectually. YHWH is in essence unnameable and unfathomable, it is considered the true force of creation and also the compassion directed towards the world by this unnameable force.

Now I think the interesting thing about this misconception is that it is often brought about by a misunderstanding of the foundation of Abrahamic religions, Judaism, mostly because the offshoots of the Judaic traditions have totally forgotten this or completely ignored it.

The God in the bible is God, but one might not consider it to be YHWH, in that YHWH has compassion for all things, it might also be said that YHWH treats all things like straw dogs, in that it's compassion is not from good or evil, but founded upon the principle of equanimity and a greater purpose that is unknowable by man. This is why YHWH can allow good men to die and bad men to prosper, because ultimately the will of YHWH is not will at all, but the way of the universe.

Just to clarify, here's a quote that might be of interest to people regarding Ein Sof (which is a term used to describe the creation force, or Godhead, not necessarily the God that is talking in the Bible),

"Ein Sof is a place to which forgetting and oblivion pertain. Why? Because concerning all the sefirot, one can search out their reality from the depth of supernal wisdom. From there it is possible to understand one thing from another. However, concerning Ein Sof, there is no aspect anywhere to search or probe; nothing can be known of it, for it is hidden and concealed in the mystery of absolute nothingness." -David ben Judah Hehasid

Now, if one didn't know any better, you might think this was a discussion about Tao or Brahma. Just something to keep in mind, which is that the foundation of almost every major religion is predicated on the notion of nothingness, and that this nothingness is not fathomable by men, but is mysterious and completely beyond comprehension or logic, in other words, it can only be experienced through a spiritual connection with Tao, Brahma, YHWH, etc.

An important thing to remember is that, much like Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, Judaism has different sects and certain sects believe things others don't. To use a term like mainstream robs us of some of this understanding, because of what we consider mainstream. In other words God as it is understand by a Jew is very different from God as he is understood by a Christian.

I get a kick out of this "being different" thread, because most of the stuff that's taught by Buddhist and Hindus is also taught in Judaism, yet because it is seen as the foundation of Abrahamic traditions, it's discarded or ignored.

So I would say, if you're going to follow religions or criticize them, at least take the time to understand them before you criticize them. Judaism at its root is filled with as much compassion as any other tradition out there and to say that it is the cause of the West's current disjointed nature of self is really not the whole truth, in fact it would be better to blame Plato and the other Greeks, for it is their general philosophies that caused much of current malaise.

Aaron

Edit- Just another point of fact, in Judaism Man is not made in YHWH's image, simply because, as previously stated, YHWH is unfathomable... that's a Christian misconception predicated upon Zeus and the Greek Pantheon. Also the notion that one's actions effect YHWH differs depending on who you talk to, one Rabbi will say that man's actions cannot effect God, the other believes that we can ask beings to intercede on our behalf (angels for instance), but most don't believe that our actions in the physical realm, sinful or otherwise, have any real effect on YHWH. The commandments and Torah were essentially God's instruction to the Jews on living a moral life, but morality itself was something that had no effect on YHWH.

Also, you can find most of this on Wikipedia if you take the time to look.

The picture was taken at 8am when the sun is still relatively low to the ground. The effect was most likely due to a reflection of light off a surface that caused your own shadow to become elongated, I say that because your ears are suffering from the same thing as the crown on your head. I'm pretty certain it's not a mystical occurrence.

Aaron

The picture was taken at 8am when the sun is still relatively low to the ground. The effect was most likely due to a reflection of light off a surface that caused your own shadow to become elongated, I say that because your ears are suffering from the same thing as the crown on your head. I'm pretty certain it's not a mystical occurrence.

Aaron

I've seen reincarnation pop up in other topics, and I really wanted to discuss it without taking it off-topic in those other threads. What I was thinking is that it would be nice to share our understanding and experiences regarding reincarnation. Since I started the thread, I'll get things going with my own brief understanding.

I've already given the long story before, so rather than type it all over, I'll just quote it...

I was twenty-two, I was very depressed, and I remember that I wanted to end it all, seriously end it all, not just a cry for help type of ending it, but a secretive, I'm not going to tell anyone and tomorrow I'm going to do it, type of depression. At that time I rarely prayed, but for some reason that night I did. I knelt before my bed with tears in my eyes and I prayed, "God, I can't take this anymore. If there's a reason for me being here, please show me, or else I'm going to kill myself tomorrow."

 

Yes I know, very dramatic and twenty-ish. What happened though was amazing. I had a dream. In this dream a man came up to me and stabbed me. I remember the pain was very real and I felt very much like I was dieing. As my final moment passed, I found myself fading away, no body or anything else, just my self, for lack of a better explanation. I suddenly found myself in this vast space, not darkness mind you, just space. There seemed to be no direction or point of reference, just vast open space. Then slowly, balls of light appeared all around me, stationary, not moving, but just sitting there. After a brief period a voice suddenly spoke to me and I realized someone or something was with me.

 

This voice said, "Aaron, you are on the Earth for a reason. You must learn a lesson. If you die you will come here. There is no time or space here, this place exists outside of the world, but it can reach the world. When you come here, you will then return to the world and be born again. You can be born in the past and in the future, it doesn't matter, because you will not remember anything from your previous life. You will keep coming here until you learn your lesson, then you will pass on from the world and this place."

 

Now as this voice spoke I felt an overwhelming peace and serenity, unlike anything I had experienced before or since. I cannot even begin to describe it, my skin tingles when I remember it. It was the most amazing sensation I've ever had in my life, better than any drug or drink, it was absent of want or need, it was as if there was no want or need, just a complete sense of satisfaction, as if there were no wants or needs at all. Again, it's hard to explain.

 

Anyways, I was trying to absorb what I had just been told, because it seemed to defy everything I had believed up until then as a good Christian. When I had finally understood what I had been told the voice asked me, "Do you understand."

 

I thought, "yes."

 

And that was that. I suddenly woke up the next morning, alive and well with the burden of depression lifted.

Anyways that's the skinny on my own view and experience. I know it's way out there and I have no way of proving it. You don't have to believe me, nor do I try to pose this as the one true account of what happens when we die, it's just my experience. With that said, I'd like to hear what other people have experienced. If you have a view on reincarnation, an experience, or just want to share your own ideas, feel free. I look forward to hearing what other people have to share.

Aaron

Hello Dwai,

I'm a bit beat so forgive me if I'm don't say much this time. Thank you for responding. Here's my response to your points.

What's the difference? One is a natural corollary to the other, isn't it?

See the entire exchange we've had is deeply rooted in philosophy (which is the mother of religion to a large extent). Secondly, religion is also a way to facilitate cultural transmissions (from one generation to another). For instance, in India, there is not much emphasis on organized religion (for non abrahamic faiths) -- ie there are temples, etc but there is no compulsion to attend a service in the temple with any particular frequency. I must have visited temples 20-30 times in my life thus far. And of that, perhaps 50% of that was spent as a tourist or a patron of art (because Indian temples are wonderful works of art). In my circles which is very diverse, it is the same case.

I think this is very much as it is in the United States. We tend to forget that the majority of self identifying Christians rarely attend church on a regular basis, but only during holidays and such. Also many of our holidays are religious based as well, Christmas and Easter being the most identifiable, but Halloween being a good example of another religious holiday that was made secular. When one examines this notion in this sense, then one will find that India and the United States (Western world) are not that far apart.

The majority of training in ethics, morality, how to conduct oneself in society are instead reinforced via the family (elders) -- using various tools such as fables, mythology, led by example, etc.

My point in regards to morality and ethics, is that most are heavily entrenched within religion. For instance masturbation, coveting your neighbor's wife (i.e. admiring her beauty and fantasizing about having sex with her), and even marriage are ethical ideals that are propagated by religions. Most of our moral codes come from religion, whether Hindu, Christian, Islam, or Buddhism.

The emphasis is on individual effort, for a seeker to gravitate towards a deity or no deity and pursue a system that works for him/her. Most people there are open minded and don't ascribe to dogma in the sense that you are projecting. Sure, many believe in God, but that is a matter of faith (colored by their experiences, etc).

I think that this is also present in the Western world as well, only the fundamentalists tend to try to direct their children and others towards a religion, and only the ultra-right fundamentalists go so far as to try to convert people to their own religion. I will admit that it is more prevalent in the West.

However, what westerners see when they visit india is an often "over-the-top" display of religious fervor, giant processions of massive deities, so on and so forth...that's from the outsider's perspective. From an insider's perspective, those displays are actually as much celebrations of tradition and culture as they are about "religion".

 

Just like people attend concerts, plays, operas outside the context of religion in the West, these happen in the context of religion and associated festivities in India.

 

So, when I present my case, I present it as an Indian Hindu (born and raised) who has had the opportunity of living and working in the West. As it must be evident by now, that your experiences with religion might have been radically different from mine. I have grown up for the most part in a model where all religions are treated with openness, not much jingoism and as personal choices that don't affect civil life (of course there are aberrations, but those are by far insignificant in number, in the grand scheme of things).

 

I think my experience was quite different than most people, but I try very hard to address this topic without bias. In regards to religion, my main issue isn't in the practice, but in the ideology and enforced moral dogma that is attached to it, that becomes entrenched in the social structure itself.

 

 

I have never disputed the fact that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. This is called Atma Jnana in Vedanta...or Self-realization. When all that is not the true self is stripped away, that which is the true self shines in its own light. But for practical purposes, it is not very feasible for everyone to get to that state easily. What is the hurdle, the very categorical frameworks that we use everyday and the actions that we take based on them (karma).

 

Trust me, I have had more than a few experiences with the "Self". But I cannot reject the "self" that is not the "Self" (if that makes sense). Why? Because what is set in motion in this world is everything that is associated with "me" -- a family, responsibilities, etc. Most people in this world are like that...not everyone can get up and walk away from it all and spend time in meditation.

 

In the Indian model, there are four stages of life that every individual is recommended to live through. The childhood through early adulthood is called Brahmacharya (as a student, a seeker of knowledge, an acquirer of wisdom). The next phase is that of a householder (or Grihastya) where one fulfills his/her duty to the society he/she is part of (raise a family, charitable actions to help those who are less privileged). The third is around retirement age, where one retreats to relative solitude with his/her spouse and spends time in contemplation of everything that has transpired so far, trying to understand the knowledge that has been acquired (spiritual) - this is called vanahprastha (in the ancient times, a couple would go live in a forest amidst nature). The final stage is called Sannyasa (or ascetism), where the individual breaks the bonds of this world (samsara) and gives up his/her personal history and lives the rest of their life in 100% dedicated discovery of the true self (Atman).

 

One could argue that this process is slow and tedious, why not jump to stage 4 directly. One could if they had the capacity to do so. Not everyone does. It is amazing how most people in this world need to be "eased" into spirituality...very few come with the ability to tune in with ease.

I think this is the way it should be for most people, so I wont disagree with you in this regard. Again my message isn't that religions should be outlawed, but rather that people shouldn't be forced into practicing them by social pressures. In reality I think very few people raised Hindu are going to decide when they get older to become Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists, simply because they have a certain construct of what is right and wrong already laid down in this regard.

My main point is that being rid of these constructs is the only way for us to really identify the truth, that so long as we allow a construct to dictate the truth, then we will never be entirely sure of what the truth actually is (or in my view isn't).

I'm also very fond of Vedanta philosophy and I personally feel more akin to it than other religions, simply because I think it glimpses the truth more than any other religion or philosophy. I think most Westerners gravitate towards Buddhism (and perhaps Taoism to a lesser extent) simply because they are more palatable to the Western psyche.

Hmm...what is referred to as absolute truth is something that is beyond the scope of categorical frameworks. So, while there might be absolute truth claims (which is the root of the problem), they are not infact absolute truth. There can never be absolutes in a relativistic world, don't you think?

 

 

I truly wish I could get you a copy of Being Different. If you have a kindle account, PM me your email id and I'll lend you my ebook.

A wise man would not leave the subject at "there is an absolute reality". The wise man would say "there is an absolute reality, but there is no point talking about it, because the moment we try to wrap it in syntax, it becomes relative -- "The dao that can be named is not the real dao/Brahman is silence etc".

That's why the concept of Pratitya-samutpada (or Depend Origination) is so radical. How do we determine that something is relative or absolute? If there is a subject and an object, they are dependent on each other. So, an observation about the object is dependent on the subject. Neither has self-existence (so they are empty of self-nature). And what follows next is...

This is an important thing to recognize and most people don't (I would say even Hindu and Buddhists), that what is absolute is neither a true or false, it simply is, and in being, it can't be described or defined, but rather can only be experienced.

In regards to the book, I don't have a kindle account, but I will try and find a cheap copy of it if I can and take a look. I'm not above reading books or learning, I just try to keep it all in perspective.

The cartesian divide of mind-body is unique to the West. In Eastern traditions there is no such differentiation. So, picking up from my previous paragraph, any thing that has a beginning will have an end. If it can be observed and either described or labeled (or both), it is a phenomenon. If it is a phenomenon, it is an object. What systems like Vedanta suggest is that when one abides in perfect stillness, silence, all thoughts eventually fade away (and what remains is pure intelligence, awareness, consciousness). That is something that cannot be described, labelled (in the moment). The practice is to cultivate this stillness, emptiness and there are many ways to do so. Seated meditation, Yoga, so on and so forth. So it is said that "the truth is one, the sages refer to it in different ways"...Religion is one way (each religion is one way), no-religion is yet another way. Depending on the nature of the individual, one may or may not work.

I think this divide of body and mind is present in (nearly) every society except for India. I find it when I talk to Chinese and Japanese people as well. It's very sad that it does exist, simply because it prevents us from knowing who we really are. It is an amazing thing to realize (not just intellectually) that we are not just a mind within a vehicle but the vehicle and everything else that exists.

It is clear that religion is not necessary for you. For me, I need the triumvirate of philosophy, a system (actually a combination of meditation, yoga and tai chi -- which I equate to Vedanta and Daoism, wherein these systems are contained) and my own consciousness.

 

What I would ask is if you really mean "I want a trumvirate", rather than need? If so how does this change the notion of the necessity of religion?

 

Thanks again for your response. I think we are having an excellent dialogue and if at any time you feel I am not addressing a point you feel is important let me know and I'll get back to you on it.

 

Aaron

It's not out of curiosity, this is an offensive question. Who is the authority? Some Chinese man in a garb in a mountain, probably.

I don't see any disrespect in asking for validity in regards to someone's claims of enlightenment. Lighten up, or maybe I should say, "enlighten up." Hah... sorry, couldn't help myself.

Aaron