Aaron

I'm still astounded that you don't understand the significance of the phrase, "chop wood, carry water". Other than that, I agree with much of what you said. I would only suggest that you apply what you've said as a mirror first, before applying it to others.

And thank you so much for being brave enough to define who is mediocre and who isn't. I forget, how does that old saying go? "How great is the ego that can tell the difference between 'eh' and 'oh'! You must fear what others fear!"

Anyways, nice overall, but still a bit smug.

Aaron

edit- On a side note, many traditional Chinese Taoists do not accept the Hua Hu Ching as being authentic for several reasons. First it was written nearly 500 years after the death of Lao Tzu, second there are no other teachings attributed to Lao Tzu that speak in this voice, in other words it was written by a different author, and third, it has very little similarity with the teachings of the Tao Te Ching itself.

The people that do accept the Hua Hu Ching as being an authentic document are most often the majority of Chinese Buddhist/Taoist/Confucianists who have no problem with attributing the qualities of Buddhism to Taoism. These same people like to claim that Lao Tzu left China and entered India to become or teach the Buddha. Historically speaking, Buddhist missionaries started to enter China around the time that the Hua Hu Ching was written, so it is quite possible that it was written by a monk who was knowledgeable of Buddhist practice and wished to integrate the two practices. (A big mistake since they are really as different as night and day!)

So, the skinny is this- the Hua Hu Ching is a Book written by Buddhists who wanted to add Buddhist thought to Taoism. It is not Lao Tzu's actual teachings.

What people need to pay attention to is the fact that almost all of your Lao Tzu quotes are taken from the Hua Hu Ching and are most definitely not the actual words or philosophy of Lao Tzu.

There's a reason why there are several hundred translations of the Tao Te Ching, but only a handful of the Hua Hu Ching. One is an accepted manuscript, the other is routinely accepted as a fake.

If you want me to cite the sources, I'd be happy to, but for the most part, just look on Wikipedia.

Aaron

The true self is amazing. Let me know when you find us

I've found you.

Aaron

I too am against control and manipulative ideology. But your viewpoint is colored by your western experience. Thats why you should read being different (the book you so vehemently are opposed to).

I have been ready for twenty years...and i never asked you to be quiet. I just noted that the intensity of your feelings are clear despite your attestations otherwise...Lao tzu also said "not too much, not too little"

When is it too much or too little? Who gets to decide? You? Me? Lao Tzu? Buddha? I'm at a loss. Perhaps we should just do what we feel is right, remembering that our aim is to do no harm to others or ourselves?

I really don't hate religious people, nor do I hate religion itself, because religion only really exists in the mind. It's very hard to hate an abstract concept. I try not to hate things at all, but I can still disagree, and even passionately disagree, so long as it does not detract me from my daily life, or my practice. If this means I'm attached to this idea, so be it, after all I'm not advocating detachment, but rather the dissolution of this notion of self we're taught to perceive.

Again, my life is focused on returning to my original nature and for me, that does not occur with religion. I don't want to be told what truth is, I want to discover it for myself. So long as I accept everything I'm told as truth without examining the nature of things outside of my preconceived notions, I can never be sure if what I'm experiencing is the root of my nature, or simply what I've been programmed to experience.

Even more important to me is remembering that these ideas are not the real me, but just a created persona that interacts with the world, the original me is absent of them. To understand my original nature, I must be free of all these constructs and stop learning new constructs. I must examine the world and my nature to understand the mystery of mysteries and understanding that mystery will allow me to understand my own original nature so that I can be like the newborn babe once more.

Aaron

Sifusufi has simply fallen for the fascist propaganda that's being spread in the united states. The truth is that the USA was founded on the principals of individual freedom, not patriotism. When you understand that, then you can see how offensive your picture of the muslim women draped in the flag is, not because she's muslim, but because she should feel the need to drape herself in the flag in the first place.

Aaron

The best book I've read on codependency is Codependent No More. I recommend it to everyone I meet with codependency issues.

The root of codependency is found in the desire to please others at the expense of your own well being or happiness. The issue most people have is with healthy boundaries. You can't develop healthy boundaries by hearing platitudes, it takes work. I would suggest reading the book and going from there.

Aaron

To say that what this guy did is anything to do with Yoga (Hatha or Tantric) is the mistake. What he did is to do with being an ordinary person in the ordinary world ... that is he behaved just like thousands of others do in the same circumstance whether they are gurus or politicians or anything else where they find themselves in a position of power. Power is an aphrodisiac they say and most people abuse it.

 

I am NOT saying this to excuse him ... lying and cheating is wrong. What I am saying is that the article is wrong in that it seems to imply that there is something 'wrong' about yoga. Or something about it that makes poor sexual behavior more likely. If you did a statistical survey (if such a thing were possible) you would probably find that there is more of this kind of thing going on everyday in workplaces, political parties, Wall Street, the Whitehouse and so on.

 

I note this

 

could it be that this article is a good plug for his book!!!!!

 

So the criticism should not be that he did yoga but that he didn't do enough.

On a personal note, one of my best friends, who is a woman and yoga instructor, left her husband for one of her students. I've yet to hear anyone speak ill of her decision (especially me). She's much happier now and so is her son. The fact was her husband was an ass, she met someone younger and more kind, who paid attention to her. It's apples and oranges, but my point is that when one is instructing someone else, there is an intimate bond. You can't expect things not to happen, or the human heart to be dictated to by rules, order, and dogma, emotion always wins out in the end.

Also, modern yoga has little to do with sex, but you ask any young man if they want to have coffee at the shop across from the yoga studio and they'll all say yes. Why is that?

Aaron

Eh, cultivation of teh v. 'being led by the balls'.... same old same old....

This is really the crux of this entire thread, and a point everyone is missing. Men have an innate desire for sex, as do woman. Can you understand how allowing someone to have control over others on such an intimate level allows people to take advantage of others? Not you per se Cat, I'm just asking everyone in general.

If you can understand this, then perhaps you wont look at him as being so evil and despicable. I'm CERTAIN many of the men on this forum would probably fall to the same weakness if put in that position. My answer to this dilemma is to not put people into this position.

Women teach women, men teach men. That's a very simple answer. Men are not celibate, nor are women, that is a second answer. Sex is not treated as sacred, but rather as a way for humans to interact on an intimate level.

This kind of crap never occurred in Polynesia, well not until Europeans and Asians showed up at least. Why is that? Because sex wasn't a sacred act of god, but a joyful act one shared with another. The Polynesians commonly had sex as a way of saying hello. No love was attached to it, love was thought to hold a much higher place than simply a physical act. You loved your loved ones, not because of the sex they could provide, but because they held a deep place within your heart.

That's the problem here, our perverted concepts of sex and love. Once we sort that out, everything else can fall into place.

Aaron

Well, if you are out in the jungle and a tiger attacks you, do you blame the tiger or the jungle?

:0

Its the same thing...you are blinded by your hatred towards religion. I don't have a problem with that...but you tend color everything with the same brush (more like tar and feather)....I have a problem with such irrational "rationality"

Hah... I don't hate religion. Where did you get that impression? I just see it for what it is. It's a way to control people. Must I continue to count the ways? There is no hate in it. I do not hate christians, buddhists, hindus, or muslims, nor do I hate religions either, rather I hope for a future free of it, when men and women can begin to live their lives according to a higher state of being, one intrinsically tied to their original nature.

You call it irrational rationality, but I call it an intuitive understanding of a harmful and manipulative ideology, one that is ingrained within society. Lao Tzu agreed with me and stated that it was one of the lowest forms of virtue, so I'm not alone in this respect. Go ahead and try to mar my comments with impressions of spite and hatred, but you wont find it.

Two weekends ago I spent the night around a campfire with thirty hardcore Christians. They spoke of Christ and prayed and I never said a thing against them. There are some people ready to hear what I have to say and others that aren't. That's the fact of the matter.

If you're ready you'll understand, if you're not you wont. It's as simple as that. I wont be quiet to appease those who aren't ready and forsake those who are. It's really as simple as that.

Aaron

In this case he was the institution. See my reference above Wikipedia

So because other people abuse their students makes it alright - don't think so

I never said it makes it right or wrong, you're implying a moral context there. I am much more concerned in whether his actions harmed himself or someone else in an objective evaluation.

Yoga is every bit as much a part of religion as any other institution. This is no different than buddhist paying for instruction from a rinpoche. The fact that there is no organized sect within Yoga, doesn't mean it's not an organized religion, it is very much so, in that it has an organized ideology, code of ethics, etc. If you choose to exclude it from the list of religions, that's fine, but I would like some documentation regarding how it is different.

This man offended society, certainly, and he obviously caused harm, which is harmful, but in the same light, was it entirely his fault? Did the people he sleep with agree, then suddenly claim innocence later? Don't be so quick to judge is all I'm saying. He is just a human being, so treat him as such. There was nothing that made him special, people chose to treat him that way.

Again, the problem is not the individual but the institution. If a man kills another man, do we just blame the knife or hand? Do we just blame the arm? No we blame the whole man, and in this case the whole man is the religion, practice, and person. They all three had a part in this, whether intentionally or not.

Aaron

Totally agree that religion is used to manipulate people, among other purposes too and am not religious at all myself . I do continue to draw inspiration from some religious thought sometimes and find it important to discriminate between what is what and what is not.

What I am saying is lets not put everything under the same label and lets not dehumanise ourselves in the name of being free of morals.

Learning to treat each other right is so important . Being a simply warm hearted person.

Blaming the society can often be unproductive as the real change starts from each and every human.

You're absolutely right here. My point is that morality is to blame because it presents this idea of right and wrong and encourages people to suppress who they really are, which invariably results in deviancy. I keep saying that the best way to live is to simply, "do no harm to yourself or to others." If you can do this, then morality has no purpose. It can really be that simple, but it seems people don't want to live a simple life, but rather they're drawn towards complicated lives.

One simple fact is that people want to be directed, they want someone to point the way for them because it gives them a sense of safety, much like the herd of zebra sticking together. The problem is that some people take advantage of this.

Anyways, I'm going to bow out for now. I think I've said enough and we both seem to see the root cause of this, so there's no reason to continue.

Each and every man and woman is born with a compassionate nature. It's our experiences in this world that cover it up or uncover it. If you ever want to uncover it simply be kind to another person and ask nothing in return.

Don't know why I said that last part, but I feel on some level it has to do with this topic.

Aaron

A few weeks ago I was arguing with someone about philosophy. I was getting very wrapped up in this argument when I suddenly had an epiphany, the argument I was having had nothing to do with me! What I mean is that the me that was having the argument wasn't the complete me, rather it was the me that was formed by the ideas and notions that I've learned from living in this world. The epiphany though, was that anything I said or the other person said, really didn't matter, because it made no difference in regards to who I really am. The nice thing is that since I had this epiphany I've found I can let go of a lot of discussions, because they just don't seem as important anymore.

I think another thing that has influenced this understanding is my recent bout of physical ailment. Right now I have a toothache and earache, as well as a slight fever. The simple fact that I'm suffering physically helps me to put these philosophical conditions into place, or rather understand their real place in my life. The philosophy itself is useless, it is only action that gives anything worth. So debating about something I believe in is worthless, unless I am also applying what I am debating to my physical life (you might say it's a bit hypocritical as well.) In other words arguments are like fevers, only you can decide whether or not you want that fever to go away.

My own desire is to become more in tune with my original nature. Part of this is understanding the mystery of mysteries, but part of understanding this mystery of mysteries, begins with understand exactly who I am and what is worth fighting for. Esoteric ideas are not who I am, but rather they constitute the facade I've created in order to interact with the world. Fighting over a facade seems silly to me, so for me I'll try and keep that in mind and focus more on what I can see is real.

Aaron

I used to live across the street from a Wah Lum Temple in Orlando, FL. The master there has six students that reside at the temple at no cost. These students teach the children that come to the temple and receive no money from this, which, considering the number of students that show up is probably a good amount of moolah. My point is that they have entered an agreement with the master and are satisfied with that agreement.

If you want to learn something, look long enough and you'll find it. I may not care for religion, but energy practice is essential for anyone who endeavors to become more spiritual. If your only reason for learning these things is to attain more power, then you will certainly be willing to spend as much as you can to learn them, on the flip side if your only reason for learning is to deepen your spiritual (and martial) awareness, then more often than not, a master will present themselves to you.

Aaron

Firstly , a difference between having a shag with a rock star just for a sake of having a shag and this type of case is real and existing. This seem to be a case of false pretenses under the guise of spirituality. There is a difference between cooked potato and potato wedges and a rotten potato . Lets not make a potato porridge out of it all.

Demonising and stigmatising in my opinion are overly dramatic and inapropriate (could be a cultural thing , having been brought up in an atehist family and communist country) description of what is being discussed and what the case is all about.

Very often sex does not boil down just to - opening legs and sticking it in. There are many finer shades of being involved.

Being human beings we have emotions too, and emotional degaradation and/or abuse could be as or even more painful than physical abuse depending on a person.

It should not be instantly seperated and swept under the carpet, becouse of lack of reasoning or common sense . Or becouse a person is not being able to judge situation rightly and forsee the outcome. There is an element of hardness to it.

I believe in questioning, adressing and recgonising/bringing out this and similar issues (all issues and bothering actually) on individual and social level. Learning to deal and recgonise many finer shades of emotional and mental spectrum , it takes us deeper into our psyche on larger scale.

So who's abusing who? Did they say he led them on and told them that he was going to be their one and only? I don't think so. I think what they wanted and what they got were two different things. Blame the man all you want, but really it's society's fault. We can examine this on the personal level as well, but the fact of the matter is the society's expectations regarding sex is very much a part of this.

As I said to Mythmaker, I'll say to you, religion has been used to manipulate and abuse people for as long as its been around. Whether it's Buddhist (and Taoist) monks abusing boys in monasteries, Catholic priests abusing choir boys, Muslim imams abusing students, or Mormon ministers fostering polygamy, the fact of the matter is that sexuality is a very human thing and denying it is the root cause of these types of "sins". The most deviant man you will find is the most righteous, because he is denying the very nature that makes him who he is. One cannot overcome their own nature by denying it, rather they must accept it and face it, then they can learn to live with it. So long as the world's answer to this problem is piety expect more of the same, just don't complain every time it happens and blame the person, rather blame the institution that allowed it to happen and that, my dear Suninmyeyes, is religion.

Aaron

Bang! Bang! Bang!

Sometimes the messenger needs to be shot

 

He didn't just have sex with one of his groupies

It was not an isolated case.

I dodge your shots with my ancient kung fu prowess! Haieyee!

Hehehe... just kidding.

I know that, even so they weren't naive innocent lost lambs manipulated into doing something they didn't want to, at least I don't believe that to be so. What happened is that they were attracted to him, had sex with him, didn't receive what they wanted from him and decided to come out against him.

I'll tell you this much, this is the exact reason why religion, and believe me yoga is a religion, stinks so much. If you don't like people using religion to influence others sexuality, then be done with religion and it wont happen anymore. If you're not willing or ready to do that, then expect this to be just a small sentence in a very long chapter.

Aaron

This is a fantastic post from sun and it's painful that it should even have to be said.

 

Twinner you said "He was an adult, I'm assuming the women were adults." this is so regularly produced as a disclaimer statement and it essentially means "paralyse your heart centre and shen NOW".

No. The point is that we only hear part of the story. Do we demonize a rock star for having sex with a groupy? No. So why are we stigmatizing and demonizing this man because he had sex with one of his groupies? The problem is that we have determined that sex between two adults is sinful and wrong and should only exist under certain conditions, when in fact there was nothing wrong or right about it, except for what the people involved decided. Now if he forced himself upon them, that's awful and something should be done about it, but if there was no force and it was consensual, and the only harm that occurred came when one side didn't receive as much attention as they wanted to, then who is at fault here?

If you ask me, I'm surprised that people don't expect something like this to happen. I mean when you're working closely with anyone there is always the chance that you'll become involved sexually. The notion that this is wrong or shouldn't occur is simply bizarre to me. Why exactly is it wrong? Who is exactly harmed by it and also, when does that harm occur?

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm the first to condemn rape and violence, but in the same way I'll stand up for those who haven't done anything wrong, other than fail to meet the social mores of society.

Aaron

On the notion of intuition, Cat had it right from the beginning in my opinion. Good job there Cat. Intuition has nothing to do with knowledge, it is a natural response to what is happening around you, a response based on an instinctual understanding of the world born of experience, rather than a logical understanding based on knowledge. The problem that most people have is that when they do reach a state of intuition, they oftentimes are unaware that they are reacting based on intuition.

My own experience stems from AA and the twelve steps. One of the promises for those who have worked all twelve steps is that they will 'intuitively know how to handle situations that used to baffle them.' Most people don't understand what this means early in recovery, because they are so used to logically deducing what the issues with the world "really" are, based on their own experience with the world, but when they learn that they aren't the center of the universe and begin to accept life on Life's terms, then they will start to react to things in a way that they previously didn't, not because of some knowledge gained, but rather because they're tapping into their original nature, the instinctual part of them that understands intuitively how to handle life on life's terms.

Or maybe not. Intuition is so difficult to talk about, simply because it is much like the Tao, it is really undefinable, because it is an action that takes place without thought or knowledge, but rather is born of the one that begat the many within.

Aaron

What about this,...anything beyond the Electric Universe (that is the physical, dark matter, and dark energy), the whole of One and Many, can indeed be understood as immediately as we let go of belief and what the thinking we want to believe.

 

Lao Tzu said, "Time and space are changing and dissolving, not fixed and real. "

 

What if what was mentioned in post #22 is correct,....that as Lao Tzu said, "The Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to yin and yang. Yin and yang give birth to all things."

 

As Undivided Light is fully synonymous with the Tao in the above quote, could we fully understand the Tao through light? The answer is yes,...whereas something of One or Yin/Yang obscures the Tao (and Undivided Light) and renders the Tao ungnowable.

 

V

I just want to interject that undivided light can't have anything to do with Tao, simply because that which gives birth to one cannot be defined, it is the mystery of mysteries. The only way we can learn aspects of it is by understanding the things that have been created from it. Even then we never know everything about it and the moment we believe we're discussing it, we lose it, because it is not something that can be conceived with the human mind.

Aaron

Okay... well let me give you a heads up regarding surrendering, Alcoholics Anonymous was teaching surrendering in the 1940s, so it's not a novel idea, not even within the modern context. It seems to me that most people who have studied any philosophical or religious ideology runs across the notion of surrender.

I think the notion of surrender is erroneous, in that those who use it to denote the action of acceptance, do so to ensure that the one surrendering is supplicating to a greater power. This is indicative of a tradition bent on submission, rather than intervention or introspection.

In AA they teach it simply as, "Living life on Life's terms." The act has nothing to do with surrendering, but rather giving up those things you have no control over, in order to prevent them from causing you to suffer. However this isn't always as simple as forgetting about them, especially in the case of the girl who lost her leg and family, rather it is a process that comes once one has accepted this loss and recognized that they have no control over that loss, upon becoming aware of this they have two choices, to accept they've done everything they can and move on, or remain in the depths of that suffering. Those that remain are often not ready to move on, so remaining itself isn't an inherently wrong action, even though those witnessing it may perceive it to be painful, in fact it is required by all who experience loss. One who does not experience loss has no connection to this world, and without a connection, they cannot experience the beauty that perpetuates the feeling of loss.

This is why I have such an issue with detachment, because the notion of detachment seems to promote a desensitization from the world itself, when in fact the problem we're having in modern society is that many people are desensitizing from the experience of self, an experience intimately involved with others as well, which results in their inability to form a lasting and spiritual bond with the world around. Keep in mind spiritual bond isn't necessarily a mystical undefinable bond, but rather one that is demonstrative of one's natural inclination towards others, based on their original nature.

Anyways this is becoming much longer than I intended. Thank for the info regarding dental pain. I will suffer until I stop suffering, their is no salvation from it. The trick for me is not allowing the suffering to become the sole determination of my soul's compass.

Aaron

I think she's entitled to her opinion and that she's right to a degree. I've suffered from a toothache for the last week, it was so bad that all I could do at times was go to work come home and go to bed. I didn't eat for two days because it was too painful to chew. I'm wondering if the answer to this suffering is to surrender, or perhaps the more practical solution is to take painkillers and wait for it to pass?

I did do some self-hypnosis and breathing exercises to minimize the pain, but again, surrendering is a silly answer and I'm glad other people are calling out Tolle on his self-professed enlightenment. I mean if Tolle can be enlightened, why can't Jerry Falwell or anyone else who gives you a feel good message with no practical application?

Aaron

edit- As a side note, I saw the Ruthless Truth folks replying to her blog, so the whole cult thing could be there too, but even cults sometimes have good ideas.

Every psychopath I've ever known has been a republican. That's not to say that all republicans are psychopaths, rather that people who lack empathy for others (sociopaths and psychopaths) tend not to care about social programs so much, unless it directly involves their own well being.

Aaron

And I find myself asking, why the <bleep> does anyone care? He was an adult, I'm assuming the women were adults. Is there some law that says rich and powerful men can't use their status to lure naive women into having sex with them? If there was another 1% of the population would be in jail now.

Aaron

Giving up religion is just another form of "religion"... negation is no better than affirmation because it takes two to tango. Generalizations are seldom truisms, diversity is part and parcel to countless beings and not separated from feeling or fact, btw various manifestations of compassion (which knows no conditions or bounds) still uses all forms or sorts of diversity to act through, and that is a special wonder and joy when first realized compared to being deaf, dumb and blind to deathless Spirit...

 

Om

Not true... Giving up religion is returning to your natural state of being. Unless of course you think religion is something we're born with.

Aaron

you have entered a "duty free" zone.

LOL!

Aaron

Twinner is a real man and Taomeow is a real woman

In four months you've surpassed me in total posts, which leads me to believe you're a really bored man or woman.

Aaron

Thank you for your perspective.

 

One thing I have seen many times and understood never is some of the non-practitioners begrudging a practitioner her practice and denying or negating or marginalizing her lifestyle based on same. I've seen roughly the same arguments in justification of this stance -- "you do it to compete" and "to gain the upper hand" and "because you think you are better than me" and what not -- on various bewildering occasions. This is usually followed by this or that "should" -- "you should/shouldn't do/not do/think/feel this and not that," and invariably the non-practitioner seeks to establish his (usually his -- I've seen much fewer instances of this attitude from women, for whatever reason) own superior, upper hand, know-better-than-you and am-holier-than-thou position. If you catch yourself doing this, I invite you to take a closer look at your motives. If you don't -- good for you. It is a useless pursuit, to teach a practitioner who respects some of her teachers and reveres others, and hopes to emulate whoever she has already chosen as her taoist role models, any "better attitudes" than the ones she has already found enough incentives to internalize to propel her practice. She may or may not argue with you out loud, but she is guaranteed to transfer you (the generic you, not you personally) from her mental list of "unique, growing, unfolding individuals -- they will still surprise, I've seen nothing yet" to, well, her other mental list.

 

Hope you're doing well too.

I guess I touched a nerve. Sorry about that. You are as unique as you want to be and there's nothing wrong or right about it, so don't worry so much what I say, because none of it matters in the end.

I say if people want to blindly follow something, then so be it. I think my only duty, and it's not a required duty by any means, is to point out what I feel is beneficial, how someone chooses to take that advice is up to them.

Aaron