Aaron

ok ... You win

 

Well that's not any good. I'm not trying to win, I'm just pointing out what I believe. I'm disappointed that the conversation has ended here, but if you don't want to continue, I understand.

 

 

Also, thanks for the conversation regardless. You're insight has given me much food for thought.

 

Aaron

It is written in P. D. Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous":

 

"You must understand that every real religion, that is, one that has been created by learned people for a definite aim, consists of two parts. One part teaches what is to be done. This part becomes common knowledge and in the course of time is distorted and departs from the original. The other part teaches how to do what the first part teaches. This part is preserved in secret in special schools and with its help it is always possible to rectify what has been distorted in the first part or to restore what has been forgotten. Out of dozens of monasteries one is a school." (p.38)

 

For the main Abrahamic religions it seems clear that they have two parts, Islam > Sufism, Christianity > Gnosticism, Judaism > Kabbalah, but most of the general public seem not to be aware that they need the second part of the religion to know what is to be done with the first part of the teachings.

 

Historically you can identify where some of these schools exist, for Sufism historically there were known schools in Mesopotamia around in Baghdad, and another in Khurasan which was a province that once included northeastern Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia, but with all the turmoil in that region those schools no longer exist publicly at least; the Whirling Dervishes in Turkey were also eradicated. For Christianity it is clear the builders of Chartres Catherdral in France and some of the Gothic monuments in Europe had Gnostic knowledge, but they had to go underground to avoid the Inquisition and it's not clear if they survived in any form. I don't know of any genuine schools of Kabbalah.

 

In Buddhism the split doesn't seem as clear but there were some Tibetan monasteries which produced a lot more enlightened masters than others, for example the Crazy Wisdom lineage all are linked to the Surmang monastery in Eastern Tibet, but with the Chinese invasion all that was lost in public at least and I don't know where there teachings ended up, Dharamshala perhaps or went underground. In Taoism there is talk of schools at Wudang mountain still containing real teachings, but I don't know many details.

 

So does anyone know of where the real schools still exist? or is it all just done in scattered oral teachings now?

 

Hello Jetsun,

 

I think what you'll find is that most authentic schools are underground because they threaten the mainstream religion itself. The destruction of these schools almost always occurred by the same religion they occupied. The reason was that they almost always taught a reverence for the practice and not the institution. That's off topic, my point is finding these schools today is nearly impossible because most are run as secret societies and they aren't about to let the media, general public, or outsiders in, simply because if they do they risk being attacked once more.

 

If someone is offering a "genuine" school, then I would be suspicious. It doesn't mean you can't try it out, but one should invariably look deeper than just the surface. Claims are fine, but in the end those people practicing true mystic schools (which is what I believe you are after) are not going to just advertise on the internet. In this case, as Pie Guy has said, the master will always find the student and not the other way around.

 

Aaron

Dear Aaron,

 

I'm not ignoring your question. I have already given the answer...you haven't seen it yet.

I'm saying that there is no escaping Categorical frameworks...even so-called frameworks to leave all frameworks create a new framework.

 

This is called "Nama-Rupa" in classical Indian philosophy. Any "system" is a complex of one or more categorical frameworks. Why? Because the very fact that there IS a system suggests that there is a certain methodology used to facilitate cognition and intellectual interpretation. So members of a certain species have evolved a basic biological framework based on which they operate. As there is differentiation within the species (slice and dice it as you may -- ethnic groups, linguistic groups, cultural groups, etc) each have developed a unique set of categorical frameworks based on which they operate. While all humans share a common set of categorical frameworks, there is also diversity between them (eg: Eastern thought process is significantly different from Western thought process, as a function of the different intellectual models being used - materialist vs idealist, so on and so forth).

 

So, to make a really long story short, if there is a system, there is a categorical framework.

 

Also posited in Vedanta (and other Eastern philosophies) is the concept of relative and absolute truth. Relative truth operates in the realm of categorical frameworks. Absolute truth is beyond all categories and labels.

 

Also posited is (based on observation) that the relative realm is one of duality (subject and object). Absolute realm is pure subject. So, in the relative realm subject and object go hand in hand (there is never any single phenomenon in the relative world that is not dualistic in nature). Similarly, for something to be absolute, there can never be a duality, it is always non-dual (tad ekam, na dwitiyam -- that one, not dual).

 

So for a member of the human species to be always present in absolute truth is to be in a state of no-thought (because thoughts are also dualistic in nature). It is because of this reason, it is impossible to be bereft of categorical frameworks in the mundane reality. Even those great masters who have been enlightened have to step into the mundane world to communicate and operate. It is another matter that they don't really consider the mundane world "absolutely" real -- because the trappings and mechanics of the relative world become evident to them as being empty (of self-existence).

 

So, whether you have religion or not, there is no "freedom" from conceptualized ideation (of any particular thing). Whether one ascribes a value to what they experience is another matter.

 

For one to "get" the absolute realm, he/she still has to use the relative. So, one cannot discard the relative. Since the methdologies to get to this level (of non-dual awareness) are many, thus various religions have evolved to provide the framework to get there.

 

Some of these religions don't go beyond duality. Some others do. So, in the relative sense, as long as the religion provides a bulwark for humans to expand their consciousness and awareness and get closer to the absolute, it is perfectly valid.

 

Do various adherents of the various religions use them for control? Sure. Does that mean that these religions are bad? Surely not.

 

So, each individual has to choose which one in the buffet of religions works for them at a deeply personal level. For some none of them work, so they choose a different path. However, they still develop or use an alternate categorical framework to get what they want. That's why, no-religion is also a religion.

 

 

 

 

First off, I'm not sure why you keep inferring that I am saying religion is bad, I'm not. To clarify, I'm saying they're unnecessary.

 

In regards to the constructs of the mind, thoughts are every bit as real and a part of who we are as our physical bodies are, that's why religion can be so damaging, because if one is entrenched in it's dogma it actually effects our body, mind, and spirit. This is subtle point many people miss and you make a valid argument in regards to nama-rupa, but what you're missing is the idea that one can see through these categorical frameworks to a greater existence. It's sort of like looking at something underneath the surface of the water, the darker the water gets, the harder it is to see. Nama-Rupa is essentially the darkness in the water, the cloudy part that prevents us from getting a clearer picture of who we are. We can't minimize the effects of nama-rupa through contemplation and introspection, because it only creates more murkiness, the only way to really see through it, to clear the murkiness is through the complete cessation of thought, the stillness of the mind. Once you still your mind you'll find that all those dark murky constructs floating within the self settle to the surface and then you can have clarity and see the self for what it is. If you have any doubts in this regard ask your teacher about this and I'm sure they'll give you the same explanation I have.

 

When I say that these constructs aren't real, I mean in the actual physical sense, that these abstract notions have no effect on our ability to navigate the physical world. In regards to navigating the spiritual world, well then they simply stir up more murk to clutter our self-perception. Absolute truths are probably the worst offenders in this regard, because they only exist within the constructs themselves, in the totality of everything they simply are neither true or false, but rather simply are.

 

So a wise man doesn't say something is absolute, because in order for it to be absolute, it must also be finite, since each thing is connected. To make this idea clearer I will use an example I've used before:

and which natural state of being would that be... as a human body, as a mind, as a soul, as a spirit? Religion is part of form and to deny form is at least problematic.

 

 

Hello Bob,

 

I wasn't ignoring you, I just passed over your post.

 

First I believe the the human body, spirit (which I consider the soul), and mind are one, differentiating between the three is useless, because they're all a single being (which by proxy is also everything). Much of what I have said in response to Dwai in subsequent posts after this comment responds to this question. So my answer is simply the natural state of being, in other words all of these states, since effecting one effects the others as well.

 

Aaron

This thread was started to prevent the continual off-topic discussion occurring in the Being Different thread. The nature of this off-topic discussion revolves around the necessity of religion and philosophy. If you would like to learn more, please refer to that thread.

 

Aaron

I think this is a good point and your post reminds me of a quotation from Anthony Demello that I think does a nice job of illustrating the potential value of religion/spirituality vs how it is generally, unfortunately, misused. I love Demello and this is one of my favorite parables of his.

For anyone unfamiliar with him, he was a Jesuit who lived and worked in India and was also a psychologist and spent much of his time providing psychological care for the Catholic clergy. I am not Christian, but through his talks I've been able to see and appreciate the deeper, spiritual core of Christianity. Unfortunately, it is deeply buried and inaccessible to most people, in large part due to the institution's desire for power. That very point is well illustrated by the following parable. His works were banned as heresy by the official Catholic censor (who is currently pope) but subsequently released for secular publication after his death.

 

 

"There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire: they could cook, could keep themselves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he disappeared. He wasn't concerned with getting their recognition or gratitude; he was concerned about their well-being. He went to another tribe, where he again began to show them the value of his invention. People were interested there too, a bit too interested for the peace of mind of their priests, who began to notice that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instruments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

 

Where's the fire? Where's the love? Where's the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don't we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overemphasized the "Lord, Lord," didn't we? Where's the fire? And if worship isn't leading to the fire, if adoration isn't leading to love, if the liturgy isn't leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn't leading to life, of what use is religion except to create more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism? It is not from lack of religion in the ordinary sense of the word that the world is suffering, it is from lack of love, lack of awareness. And love is generated through awareness and through no other way, no other way. Understand the obstructions you are putting in the way of love, freedom, and happiness and they will drop. Turn on the light of awareness and the darkness will disappear."

Anthony Demello

 

 

Thanks for this post. I wouldn't disagree with what he said.

 

Aaron

I must apologize...my intent wasn't to suggest that you are juvenile. The feeling I got from your post was that the idea was almost juvenile (in that, that is how I used to argue against religion when I was a teen).

 

I am glad you don't have an obsessive dislike for religion. In that case, perhaps you should be open to the possibility that what you are suggesting as the "characteristics" of religion are infact not inherently intrinsic to them, but to interpretations of suggestions there in? Would it be reasonable to suggest that as a theory?

 

 

 

You don't really understand Karma. Karma is not India's answer to heaven and sin. Karma is the incentive for being Wu Wei (Nishkama Karma). The fact of the matter is, this has never served the purpose of keeping the masses in line. What it has done is allowed the adventurous individuals to break free from the bondage of ignorance. Like I said, your approach is way to reductionist to actually appeal to me...and I used to think like that 20 years back.

 

 

 

 

Ah...objectivity...I see. Hmm...what is the means of gathering objective information? A subjective observer

Oh and the rules that define objectivity? Those are called categorical frameworks. You can be assured that there is no reality that is not interpreted via a categorical framework.

 

I can also assure you that there are things that have to be taken on faith. Without that, you cannot start down any path. Imagine you are driving in a new city and your have a map. If you dont' take the map on faith you will be lost. Religion is like that map.

 

Let me ask you this...do you think that what you see is objective reality? If there was no categorical framework that set down the rules to interpret what you see, there would be no way to make sense of anything. Everything that you take for granted in the mundane world is based on a conceptualization of reality (categorical framework). The moment we ascribe a description and label onto something, it becomes a conceptualized intepretation of the "real" thing. The paradox is that without this, we cannot operate.

 

Try walking in the middle of your busiest express way without that framework...you'll get run over by a speeding car...

 

 

 

I am not insisting that you become religious. I just don't like the presumption that something has to be rejected purely on a superficial analysis (I don't see any depth in your analysis so far...there are so many more layers to things than what you have articulated).

 

Moreover, this was about the book Being Different and what it posits. It is by no means a call to become religious. It is a book for intellectuals who like to see things from a perspective that is different from the norm.

 

There is a great deal of depth to what I'm saying, you're just ignoring it. The fact of the matter is that nothing you've said has countered my argument. You didn't even bother answering the question. I know it's a tough question, but I find when I pose it to people they tend not to answer simply out of fear, fear that the framework upon which they've laid their lives upon might be fallible.

 

I am not making a presumption based on superficial analysis, read wikipedia and numerous other books and you'll find the same message. I'm not the first to come up with this notion, nor will I be the last, because the first thing that most people realize when they do break the chains of faith, is that faith is what has held them prisoner.

 

Buddha himself said the same thing I'm saying, the only difference between my message and his is that people decided to worship him and raise him up on a pedestal. Did you know Buddha never admitted to being divine, so why did people decide to make him divine? Well the fact of the matter is that the people didn't do it so much as the rulers did. Buddhism is the perfect religion to spread to the masses, because it emphasizes compassion and passivity. The same goes for Taoism and other philosophies. The fact of the matter is that compassion is fundamental to our original nature, but religions distort it into an act that one commits to receive something. The highest form of compassion is the kind that is done without regard to self, that is compassion that thrives from original nature.

 

It might surprise you that many of my ideas stem from Vedanta, in particular Vedanta minus the dogma and scripture, and rather just the fundamental ideas. There is nothing wrong with ideas mind you, but as anyone who has studied Vedanta knows, ideas are not who we really are. If one pursues the act of introspection and meditation, then eventually, I would say invariably, they will touch upon their original nature at some point, whether in a flash of light or a gradual realization, they will begin to see themselves as who they really are, rather than who they've been defined to be for so long.

 

My way isn't the way, it's just a way. I encourage people to find their own way, one that involves understanding who they are and how they were formed by the constructs that society has created. At one time we wandered the world, taking what we needed and moving on when things got scarce. The change in our psyche as a society and culture came when we stopped being satisfied with what we needed and instead pursued what we wanted. The same can be said for spirituality or the desire to know the mystery that eludes us. At one time we all knew that mystery, but the gradual change in how we behaved necessitated a change in how we believed. With that necessary change from a nomadic existence to an agricultural existence there came a gradual excess that occurred, and as we often do, we found a way to deal with it, greed.

 

Religion itself isn't evil or good, as I've said, but it isn't beneficial anymore. Steve's quote is an excellent example of this, but if you look even deeper, look at the amount of suffering and abuse that occurs in the name of religion, you'll find that he majority of this abuse is perpetrated directly by the religious leaders. Can good come from religion? Of course, but that isn't my point, my point is whether or not we need religion to satisfy our worldly concerns.

 

In regards to faith, there is a very big difference between accepting that a map to a city may be correct and accepting that if I become enlightened I will be free of the dharmic cycle. As far as karma goes, I think it's you who might be a little off on the concept. When asked why the last tsunami killed so many people in Thailand a monk replied that it was because the people of that region had developed so much karmic debt, not because an earthquake occurred that shifted the tectonic plates causing a sudden displacement in the ocean. So should I accept that the tsunami occurred because the people had done bad things in their past life or that there was an earthquake? I think the answer is simple. Karma is a crutch that allows us to shirk our responsibilities in this life, by blaming them on a previous one.

 

The irony is that I believed as you did for quite a long time, but it wasn't until a recent period of awakening that I began to see religion and philosophy for what they are. We could go round and round on this topic, but the fact of the matter is that my point of view wont change.

 

As an aside, I often times encourage people to study the Tao Teh Ching and other philosophies, but I also remind them that they are merely ideas, that true awareness comes from experiencing the original nature of one's self. That is the most important message I can share with people, examine who you are without any preconceived ideas. If you do it long enough, you will eventually see it. It start with silencing your mind, but it ends with an awakening of the soul.

 

Aaron

you come across as a smart guy. Why this obsessive dislike toward religion? You re being so reductionistic, it is almost juvenile...

I could answer you point by point but i will be wasting my energy...like i have told others before. You will learn as you grow older.

 

Actually I may be older than you. This isn't juvenile behavior, most juveniles aren't anti-religious, rather they're ambivalent or hyper-religious. Also I don't have an obsessive dislike of religion, you saying that doesn't make it so. I just see it for what it is and you see it as something else. This is what I call redirection in lieu of an actual response.

 

er...yes thats what i said...karma is is karma or action. There is no good or bad karma...because the chain of causality is so complex, it is useless to ascribe a value to the effect...what might seem good on the surface might be bad in the long term but in even longer term might be good and so on...

 

Good or bad are dependent on perspective. Lets say a mosquito bites you, you smack it and it dies. Do you accrue bad karma?

 

You actually said "Karma is Karma", but never alluded to it being subjective in nature. Karma is nothing more than India's answer to heaven and sin. You must be good and you must break the chains of Karma and suffering. Are you saying that you can't see how this concept helps to keep the masses in line?

 

and we are what? Humans right? so why would religion exist outside the human mind? However, just because it does makes it bad? What kind of logic is that? The very fact that you say "reality" is in itself a conceptualization, your use of english is a conscptualization, living in this society, you cannot avoid conceptualized views of reality. Why? Because thats how our faculties are set up...even the most enlightened being has to return to the dualisitic world to navigate his way around and immediately conceptualized view of reality is used.

 

If you read my response to Serene, you'd understand that returning to original nature has nothing to do with being rid of conceptualized responses, but rather understanding them for what they are. Religion isn't real, it's not objective, it's a subjective conceptualization that has absolutely no basis on reality. That's my point. Everything you find in most religions is dependent on faith, rather than an objective analysis.

 

so you do agree that being different is not only natural but also a good thing...

If you spend some more time thinking about your position, you will find dogma in that as well...and find flaws in logic which i dont have to point out rigth now. Mark in your calendar an arbitrary date a few years later...and then come back and read your comments here and smile...because i bet you if you spend some more time on this in honest introspection, you will "break free"

 

I do not see anything right or wrong in being different. It is neither good or bad. I've spent some time (decades in fact) coming to understand what I have and I doubt I'll change my mind anytime soon. It's only until the last few years I've become brave enough to break the shackles of faith and see the world as it is, rather than how I've been told it is. As for dogma, there is nothing dogmatic in telling people not to blindly follow dogma.

 

There is no good or bad, right or wrong, there is no righteous or sinful, there is only me and you. See yourself for who you really are and see me for who I really am, then you can understand everything you need to understand.

 

 

If you can answer this question for me and if you can do it satisfactorily, I'll happily become religious again, what does your religion offer you in this world that you can't achieve without it? Now once you've answered that, perhaps the next best question is, what does it take from you and what does it give you? You don't have to answer the second question, but I think it's a good thing to examine.

 

Aaron

oh i have learned from my past mistakes but i don't think you have learned from yours..

 

this is why i am now walking a different path..

 

the path i am walking on now will finish at the end of this year, one way or another..

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah... same song, not even a different dance. The really funny thing is that you have a teaspoon of knowledge and think it's a gallon. You might want to consider actually talking to someone who knows about this stuff, rather than believe the little bit that you've learned in your short young life can equate to wisdom. At least wait to proclaim your greatness til you're out of your teens.

 

Aaron

Good idea but I'm not even sure this is possible. GoldisHeavy has often spoken on this subject and I tend to agree with him. Because from my personal experience when I toss one idea overboard another lurks in the shadows to take it's place. I'm just unconscious to the replacement until something jars me enough to make me see the new (unconscious) lens.

 

I'm glad you say "sure" because that at least means there is a chance for you to see otherwise. Returning to your original nature does not mean that you abandon and discard this notion of self, but rather that you look past it and see what exists without it. It is when you can see what exists without it that you can then begin to see the true nature that exists within you and the intrinsic connection you have with everything that exists.

 

This is where awareness watching awareness watching itself begins to be useful. Turn the gaze around and focus it back upon prajna itself. But that is a high level of skill. I'm not sure most people who post at Taobums are at that stage. You'd have to have broken through every single one of the skandas before you can begin to do that.

 

Why do you believe this is necessary to become aware of your original nature? Because someone has told you it is. Is this your experience? That is a good question.

 

My goal is to try to make people aware that there is an answer beyond religion, that one can be spiritual without joining a religion or following a preordained philosophical path. We each have the ability to achieve a state of awareness without direction from anyone. There is no harm in receiving direction, but one should always remember that direction lead to specific destinations. If one tells you that this destination is holy, true, good, and righteous, it doesn't make it so. Good and bad are just subjective terms.

 

The first key to true introspection is to give up this notion of good and bad and examine yourself for what you are. If you can achieve this, then you can begin to see how the you that you are was formed, and then see the you that you were from the beginning. When you can see the original you, then you will begin to truly understand your original nature.

 

Twinner...when you finally come into some extra money go ahead and read the book. You might find it interesting.

 

 

If I do, I'll take a look. I hope life is treating you well.

 

Aaron

Aaron, no worries. These things take time to think about and respond to.

 

You are conflating two different things here. I am saying that most "religions" aren't dogmatic by their very nature. First, the term religion is not appropriate to describe them...they are dharma (especially the eastern ones) (which is a lot more amorphous while at the same time being greatly wider in scope). One good description of the difference between the two is in the intent: "religion is dogma when one follows it for rewards or fear of punishment (heaven or hell) while it is dharma is what one follows it for knowledge, harmony and insights". Do certain cultures tend to lean towards one or the other? Sure they do. Does that make religion bad...I don't think so.

 

 

There is no difference (at all) between Catholicism and Buddhism, nor Taoism and Islam, when they are practiced as religions. The basic purpose doesn't change, only the premise. One desires to save the soul so they can ascend to heaven, the other to break the cycle of karma/dharma so one can be free from suffering. In both cases we are taught that there is something wrong with us, that we're flawed, and that's the issue I have. If you don't think Buddhism has dogma, then what do you call the four noble truths, the eightfold path, sidhis, skandas, etc. Hinduism is the same, although Vedanta at its core has the potential for the least dogma.

 

You don't understand Karma. Karma is neither good, nor bad. Karma is karma. The more karma one does the more entangled one gets in the cycle of this universe, the more obscured they get from their true self.

 

As for karma... it's not so cut and dry as karma is karma. Karma is the accumulation of one's prior actions and by definition can be good or bad.

 

Everything else you write is true...but that is true irrespective of whether there is religion or not. Any ideology will force an individual to do that (as will the so-called secular ones -- eg post-modern humanism or it's predecessor communism). It is foolish to throw the proverbial baby out with the dish water...

 

The baby in the bathwater isn't real, it's just plastic, and hence is only valuable to those who see it as such. There is no harm in throwing the baby out, if in fact it's not real to begin with. And that's the crux, religion isn't real! It's a conceptualized idea. It doesn't exist outside the confines of the human mind. Why must we form a conceptualized view of reality, in lieu of reality?

 

Do you think diversity without religion is any better than it is with it?

Do you think there would be diversity if there were only one skin-tone in the world (sure there are so many other attributes besides skin tone, right)?

Do you think there would be diversity without different languages? Different dietary habits? Different musical interests? The list could go on and on...

 

You might say, these are all culture dependent. I would say, so are religions. They are as much a part of natural evolution of the human species as it is for the dinosaurs that developed wings and finally resulted in the avian species...

 

Religions are not culture dependent. We know that religion, as we know it, was formed when men ceased to be nomadic and instead focused on agriculture as a means to survive. The increase in protein from these food sources allowed these cities to grow at astounding rates and soon they became kingdoms and empires. In order to regulate these communities and direct them away from the nomadic ways, they formed religions so that there was a set moral code that dictated acceptable behavior. Religion is a form of control and those religions that are successful are the ones that allow the leaders of a country to rule over it's people with the minimum resistance.

 

 

As for diversity, diversity without religion is the only form of honest diversity, because a person becomes who they are, not through a social construct, but by the experience of self and the world that surrounds them. Religion is not the backbone of society. It isn't the heartbeat of music or the pulse of a generation, rather it is an outdated dogma that holds society back from advancing to a greater state of being.

 

Again, I don't hate religion, but I see it for what it is. It can be good and bad, but the fact of the matter is that it's not needed. If anyone thinks they need religion then they should ask themselves a simple question, does this religion offer me anything beneficial in this life that I couldn't achieve without it? If the answer is no, then why do they follow it?

 

Aaron

If the Universe gives you the power & authority to destroy this old world so that a new, better world can be reborn..

 

do you have the courage to destroy this old world?

 

If you have the power to transform the whole of humanity into a race of Enlightened Immortal Gods .. but first of all.. you have to destroy the world and humanity as we know it...

 

will you destroy this old world?

 

 

I think you haven't learned from your past mistakes, simply because you don't see them as mistakes. If you continue down the same path you walked before, don't expect to reach a different destination.

 

Aaron

hahahaha are you so sure i am me?

 

If you aren't you, then who are you?

 

Aaron

Hmm..if one person gives up religion, is he then not being "different" from the others, unique, etc. To make a claim that those who have given up religion for a specific set of reasons have done so to get some benefit (in whatever shape or form) is the same as ascribing to them a "uniqueness".

 

Also, then to claim that everyone should become that way is nothing but a different tack on trying to create "sameness" (ie the same thing that christian or other religious evangelists want...the rationale used to justify this might be different however).

 

Why cant we accept that there are differences and that these differences should make us stronger collectively and not resort to one-up-manship?

 

If we look at nature, we will see that there is diversity but underlying there is integral unity. Why try to synthesize unity by omitting the diversity? As long as there is mutual respect, there will be no conflict. If there indeed is conflict, then it will be intellectually solvable instead of having to resort to violence.

 

For any conversation (dialog) to be successful, there has to be a common goal that the parties involved need to work towards. If there is no such common goal, there is no dialog (it is at best soliloquy or at worst confrontation).

 

This line of thinking is challenged very well in the book and its all the more reason to warrant a good read.

 

 

 

 

Hello Dwai,

 

I hadn't noticed you'd responded to my post. I apologize for taking so long to respond.

 

Some things to think about, first, in nature diversity doesn't involve religious dogma that has no practical purpose towards a person's physical well being. Most people are religious because they were taught to be religious early in life, or because they hope to find something in religion to alleviate some condition that they perceive as being abnormal. This can be death, unhappiness, or simply a need to belong. In the natural world animals don't worry so much about death, but rather staying alive. Animals become unhappy, but they don't seek some magic cure, they accept it and allow themselves to pass through it as naturally as possible. When they feel the need to belong they seek others that will accept them and if they can't find anyone that will, then they live their lives to the best of their ability. They don't do this because of some moral compass or social bullying, but rather because they are invested instinctively towards pursuing these things.

 

Second, I'm not saying that everyone should pursue personal introspection, rather, I'm saying that the benefits of personal introspection far outweigh the benefits of religion and that religions tend to tell people that there is something wrong with them, whether it's a sinful nature, bad karma, or a disconnection with nature. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with us, except for what religion has helped to create. Man is not born with an innate desire to seek out religion, rather it is forced upon them, so my question is why force it upon them. I think the best course of action for any parent is to shield their children from religion until they become old enough to make a decision about it for themselves. In the meantime, as they are growing up, teach them to accept themselves for who they are, that they will have strengths and weaknesses, but that their weaknesses and strengths do not define who they are, but rather their actions do.

 

If each of us can live life with the simple idea that we will do no harm to ourselves or to others, then we will have a much greater chance of bringing the next generation into a world that actually is a better place to live. Sadly, most religious people are more intent on "saving" people and "enlightening" them, than they are actually helping them simply for the sake of helping. That speaks volumes about religion in my opinion.

 

As for diversity, do you really think their wouldn't be diversity without religion? There would absolutely be diversity, only the people would be diverse because they were following their own original nature, rather than what was constructed for them by society.

 

Aaron

I think what you'll find, ultimately, is that when they remove the cdrom, that you'll also have to pay for a subscription to the xbox internet service in order to download games. First month will be free though. Playstation will do the same thing. It's all about milking people out of as much money as you can.

 

I loved my Atari.

 

Aaron

I have read the wiki article and it said that the authorship is disputed like the tao te ching. it may not be authentic it might have been written by mice but that does not meen its words dont hold some truth. taoism may say attachment to this world but so does tantra in my understanding. use what you have to reach a goal emlightenement immortality etc. I agree what do we really know in this world? one day we knew for certain the world was flat and the next oh now we know it is round and even further still we now know it is more oblong in shape. as far as the buddhist taoist who shaped who in china the two are so tangled it is hard to say imo.

 

Thanks

 

If you examine the language and style of the Hua Hu Ching, it is very different from the Tao Teh Ching. And yes, if you want to find a hybrid form of Taoism that fits Buddhism as well, then it's a great way to go, but I don't think many educated scholars would consider it to be written by Lao Tzu. That's my point, that these passages really aren't quotations from Lao Tzu, but rather Buddhist propaganda.

 

I would suggest that you read up more on Tantra as well, it's not about attachment, but rather awareness. You seek to find the spirituality in all of your actions, rather than in just a brief period of practice.

 

Aaron

I just wanted to add, that I really do not want to see this topic die. I think it's a valid discussion, the points I've made aren't meant to take the discussion off track, but rather make people aware of the texts being sited by V Marco and the intrinsic differences between each religion.

 

Enlightenment itself is so misunderstood by most people, that I think even trying to grasp the concept is overwhelming for most. I've actually started an enlightenment topic myself once or twice, but I'm learning from my mistakes, because inevitably you're discussing something that is completely subjective and I doubt will ever gain any kind of general consensus among everyone, even the Eastern Traditions.

 

With that said, I'll toot my own favorite topic of late and remind people that enlightenment doesn't require a tradition, that it can be found through internal and external inquiry by most people who diligently seek it. I say most because there are some people that will never understand it.

 

Anyways, I hope this topic continues, because it is a worthwhile one.

 

Aaron

I am wanting to know more about what exactly co-dependence really is, and is not??

 

Codependency is the unnatural dependency one feels towards another person. In most cases both people involved are codependent, because a person with a natural dependency on others will flee from a codependent relationship because the person seems too clingy, needy, bossy, etc.

 

Codependency's root is in control and most people that have codependency issues are from unstable childhoods. The lack of control that one felt during their early childhood manifests in a need to control others, either passively or overtly. In most cases it's a bit of each.

 

If you're wondering if you're codependent ask yourself how comfortable you are with the person you feel codependent towards and how much freedom you allow them in their lives? Do you get upset when they're out too late? Do you try to dictate how they should live their lives, because you know what's best for them? Do you care for them, even when they're abusive towards you? These are just a few questions, but the overall answer lies in how much you interfere with their own life and by proxy, how much you allow them to interfere with yours, another form of control.

 

I hope that helps to answer your question.

 

Aaron

I am interested in your thoughts on the hua hu ching. I would like to see some sources and such. on the surface they buddhism and taoism could be different as night and day but once one dives deeper they start to have similaritys right?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Alright, first nearly everything you need to know about the Hua Hu Ching can be found on Wikipedia, so go there and take a look, second if you look at the time that the text was written, it's around the same time that the first Buddhist missionaries arrived in China. Prior to this arrival there is no documented evidence that Taoists attributed many of the Buddhists qualities to Taoism that they do today. Absolutely none. If you'd like to point out some, I'd be happy to agree. Alright, there was one text, the Hua Hu Ching. (See what I'm saying?)

 

It's not an authentic document in my opinion and most Taoists scholars don't take it seriously (i.e. that it was written by the same author of the Lao Tzu / Tao Teh Ching). There's a reason there are hardly any translations of it, and it's not because it's widely respected guide to esoteric Taoism (that would be the Secret of the Golden Flower, another pseudo Taoist text), so if quoting it makes the Buddhists happy because they can say, "oh look they aren't that different after all. We can all be Buddhist-Taoists!" Well that's fine, but the reality is that the focus of Taoism is on attachment to this world and the focus of Buddhism is detaching from this world. One finds communion through seeing the Mystery in all things, the other finds enlightenment by realizing that everything is an illusion.

 

Now to end this short little diatribe, I would like to add that prior to Buddhism in China, you don't hear the notion of enlightenment in Taoism, rather you hear about immortality through Taoist alchemy, internal and otherwise. Even then they are somewhat vague on what this immortality really means.

 

As an aside, I don't see one tradition as any more beneficial than the other, so I'm not pointing this out in order to diminish one or the other, but rather make a point, that everything stated as fact, isn't necessarily so. Many Buddhists use the Hua Hu Ching to convince others of the similarities between the two, but you never find Taoists doing that, why would that be? Think about it. Again, this isn't to diminish one or the other, but to clarify the differences between the two traditions.

 

Aaron

 

edit- As an aside, it can't be dismissed that Taoism has also had a profound influence on Buddhism in China. This is evident in the many different schools of Buddhism that have developed over the last 1,800 or so years since the first missionaries arrived, but perhaps most importantly it can be seen the type of meditation practiced by the Northern Ch'an Buddhists, which was essentially the integration of Taoism meditation to Buddhist thought.

 

Shen-Hui, who is widely regarded as the founder of Ch'an Buddhism, hailed from the Wudang Mountains, which was the home of the Wudang school (clan for all you hip hop fans out there) of Taoism. The style of meditation taught by Shen-hui is nearly identical to the style of meditation taught by the Wudang Taoists, Wu Ji.

 

In fact it would be more fair to say that Taoism has had a greater impact on Buddhist thought in China, than the other way around.

 

Now to be completely honest, there are similarities in thought between Taoism and Buddhism, in particular the notion of compassion plays an integral part in both religions. I think many Taoists could appreciate the level of devotion to this principle that the sincere Buddhists practiced. Overall the similarities stop at one point, a very important one, which is the overall world view of each tradition, as stated previously.

 

Anyways, this is getting a bit long, so I'll leave it at that. Also I have to admit that I'm not a scholar on the topic by any means, but I have read enough to form my own opinions.

The people have enough and to spare,

Where I have nothing,

And my heart is foolish,

Muddled and cloudy.

 

The people are bright and certain,

Where I am dim and confused;

The people are clever and wise,

Where I am dull and ignorant;

 

The enlightenent are ignorant. The enlightened don't define enlightenment, because only trough letting go of definitions do you become enlightened and fall from the heavens into the eternall hellfire to abide therein for eternity.

 

Where you ask what is enlightenment, the enlightened already know that each question is asked by you in order to be answered by you. You already know the answer, but you will never accept this even if it were told to you by some alien spaceship being landed on your backyard.

 

The enlightened people are satan. The people of the eternal Fire and abide in it they shall forever. Satan is so foolish, that even if he told everyone the truth of his own being, no one would believe him. That is how masterful the deception is. Infinite intelligence. The answers of satan are only as good as the questions that are being asked. You will never find the truth, for there are none. The one and only objective truth and reality is God/Tao and Satan has rejected Him/It and its/His existance. Thus, all things are relative to Satan and no form will Satan take. Talk about dim and confused...

 

They are rebel's, fighting against reality. Fallen angels, having denied the Will of their Creator. They fight the roots of your being and challenge your illusionary existance in such masterful ways, that only the mercy of God will save you from falling into the eternal hellfire.

 

I just spoke to the devil on a metaphysical phone.

The devil says: "I create my own truth. Those who do not join me, I shall deceive them eternally and may God have mercy upon them. I am but an ignorant troll, who has mastered the art of self deception and create my own reality."

 

The enlightened are schizophrenic. I consider my self schizophrenic. Some demon slayer in black leather boots just offered me a siggarette, but he is fake and I am ignorant. I have an illness and I need to be cured, excorsized, purified, mentally examined, etc.

 

Now you tell me... What is your definition enlightenment?

 

If you are schizophrenic, then everything you've said makes sense, but only to you. The problem that exists is that reality is subjective and trying to direct every individual to enlightenment using the exact same means is not only impossible, but ridiculous.

 

The Dalai Lama himself makes the point that Buddhism isn't for everyone, for instance, and I agree. There are many paths, not one single one. The enlightened, in my opinion, will not tell you they are enlightened simply because there is no reason for them to.

 

Throw everything out of the room and begin to examine it for what it is. Is it a bedroom, kitchen, living room, or study? You can decide that, or you can just leave it as a room.

 

Aaron

After I dropped back into meat eating, I only ate fish for about three or four years. One day I had fried chicken and I decided I was going to eat chicken as well, so for another two or three years I only ate chicken and fish, then I found out fish has a lot of mercury in it, so I cut back on fish and stuck to chicken. I had a pork chop one day and decided I would eat pork. A year or so later I was out and about and the only thing available were hot dogs and hamburgers, so I ate a hamburger and hot dog and decided I would eat hamburgers and hot dogs.

 

Now I eat everything available, but 90% of the time I will only eat chicken and Ramen noodles. I actually eat ramen noodles for nearly every lunch I have. They say the sodium is bad, but I'm as healthy today as I was when I was thirty.

 

This is the skinny though, you can eat WHATEVER you want, so long as you don't overeat. Eat small portions, healthy snacks, and you don't have to worry about your health. If you can't do that, then suffer with diets until you learn to.

 

I'm always a bit perplexed with people who think we ought to be vegetarians, simply because nature has set us up to eat meat. Look at those pointy teeth in the front of your mouth, what do you think they're for? Definitely not for chewing veggies, that's what the back teeth are for.

 

Aaron

I'm not sure why it's wrong to enjoy the taste of meat. I didn't eat meat because of personal convictions at the time, but I was willing to accept that I liked the taste of meat. Lets face it there's very few things in the universe that taste as good as chicken. (My diet these days is almost exclusively chicken, with a bit of pork thrown in the mix.)

 

As far as TVP goes, it really depends on who you buy it from. There are companies that sell organic TVP that is every bit as good for you as tofu. If I find people are having problems with following their vegetarian diet, because they miss the taste of meat, or texture, then I will heartily encourage them to eat TVP.

 

Back to the topic of whether or not it's wrong to enjoy the taste of meat, well it's sort of like the religious majority telling you it's wrong to think of sex. In the end it's enforcing moral dogma on a diet.

 

Aaron

WRONG!!!

The OP asked for opinions of experience with vegetarianism and was specifically concerned because he had done research that suggested it didn't work well for everyone (he is correct - it doesn't work well for everyone). Just because my experience with it differs from yours doesn't mean I "hijacked the thread". I gave him valid alternative opinions based on seeing dumbasses (not dumbasses for trying but dumbasses because it wasn't working for them and not doing anything about it) try vegetarian diets, get anemic as hell, then think they can't change because of un-thought through juvenile opinions about saving the animals and or/ spirituality - and I explained why. Why don't you attempt addressing the points I raised instead of spouting nonsense? In fact I have actually seen you answer his question other than give the old "vegge secret handshake".

 

edit: I get that you like being a vegetarian. I am glad it works for you. But the fact is it doesn't work well for everyone.

 

Actually I disagree. It doesn't work well for those people who aren't willing to eat the way they're supposed to. Potato Chip vegetarians are going to have a hard time of it, but from everything I've learned, everyone, diabetic, hypoglycemic, you name it, can eat a vegetarian diet and remain healthy.

 

If the OP doesn't feel it's right to eat meat, why do you feel the need to give him an alternative that involves eating meat? He said he had quit for spiritual reasons, most likely his conscience tells him it's wrong. If he feels it's wrong, then he most definitely shouldn't eat meat.

 

I have no issue with eating meat, but I do have issues with people who eat meat, but feel it's wrong. That's bad for their conscience. So if you feel it's wrong, the simplest thing to do is not do it. If you don't, then no problem.

 

As far as vegetarian diets go, it's not that hard to be a vegetarian, in fact it's much harder to do the Atkin's high protein/low carb all meat diet in my opinion. I believe man is meant to eat mostly vegetables and a little meat.

 

Aaron

So i recently decided to go vegetarian and was just looking for advice or experience from people who have been or are still on a vegetarian diet.

 

I decided to go veggie because of environmental and spiritual reasons. I've been eating relatively healthy, plenty of greens and daily oranges. Beans, greens, tofu, cereal.

 

 

To the ones who have been long time vegetarian...

 

What diets have worked best for you?

 

Also

 

I am a little worried about the long term effects of it. My research online has told me that people have succeeded but there also people who experience negative repercussions because of it. They cite that they feel less energy (peacefulness?) and things such as weakness or maybe even forgetfulness.

 

 

 

So as a question coming from a 20 year old male....what is a correct way of going about this and what should i expect?

 

I was a vegetarian for around eight years. I never had a problem with energy. I was taught to eat complete proteins. I ate brown rice and beans ALOT. Brown rice takes some getting used to (there is a reason most people eat white rice), but it is one of the best complete proteins you can find for the money.

 

Another thing that helps is to find ways to convert your old favorite dishes to vegetarian dishes, either by substituting TVP (textured vegetable protein) or by substituting a vegetable (i.e. vegetable lasagna.)

 

I am no longer a vegetarian. At one point I found it necessary, but later decided it wasn't. I wont tell you what is right or wrong in this regard, just do what you feel is right so long as it does not cause you any harm or anyone else.

 

Aaron

If you look hard enough you can find something beneficial in everything. Even poison has its uses, that doesn't mean we're not better off without them. I hate it when people say, "it's not all bad." It's kind of like having your hand chopped off and saying, "it only hurts when I try to do anything."

 

Aaron