Aaron

so do you carry a copy of the tao te ching with you? why or why not?

For around 20 years I was a Taoist and carried a little pocket sized copy of John C. H. Wu's translation with me wherever I went. I would often read it when I was bored. When I was a christian I carried a pocket sized copy of the New Testament with me, so I guess I just substituted one for the other. On a positive note, I'm well versed in the TTC, the negative is that I no longer practice Taoism, much of the time I spent studying it could be seen as wasted.

Aaron

I think this thread is an excellent example of the egos at work on this forum. The original poster left because people started to do the very thing she stated caused her to be weary. Where is the compassion in persisting to act in a way that offends or disturbs another person? I'm not claiming innocence here, since I certainly have an ego and on more than one occasion felt the need to defend my personal opinion, but one thing I'm beginning to understand more and more is that this need to defend myself stems from my desire to protect my ego, rather than a sincere desire to bring compassion, liberation, and an end of suffering in others.

The fact is that it's not really that difficult to behave compassionately, but many of us, either out of greed, anger, or whatever reason, choose not too. If we, including me, thought more about the consequences of our comments, rather than the "need" to say the things we do, I think that would go a long way towards learning to converse in a compassionate way with others.

Aaron

Hello Sereneblue,

I wanted to touch base on the whole insanity thing. I'm not entirely aware of what Nietzsche meant when he was comparing insanity in groups vs. the individual, but what I know from studying psychology is that insanity is based on culture, because the definitions of what constitutes insanity are based on cultural biases.

A man hears voices that tell him that evil spirits are causing the drought, he tells a doctor and the doctor consults the diagnostic statistical manual of mental disorders and find that the man fits the criteria for Schizophrenia. The man is put on a regiment of drugs to treat the disorder, drugs he'd rather not be on, but is essentially forced to take in order to fit into society and get treatment for his illness. Another man experiences the same thing, but lives within a tribe in South America. The tribe members are ecstatic, because this man has obviously been touched by the spirits/god/whatever. They have been told the cause of the drought. They look at the man, not as being dysfunctional or mentally ill, but as being blessed, in fact they treat him like he is special. This man never suffers from his condition, but rather is sought by others for advice and help because of his condition.

Wikipedia has this to say about mental disorders:

"A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological pattern, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context. The recognition and understanding of mental health conditions have changed over time and across cultures, and there are still variations in definition, assessment and classification, although standard guideline criteria are widely used. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), over a third of people in most countries report problems at some time in their life which meet criteria for diagnosis of one or more of the common types of mental disorder."

When I read the above statement, which is what they teach you in Psychology 101, I see exactly what Nietzsche was talking about. Mental illness is something that is defined according to cultural perspective, so an individual cannot be defined as mentally ill, unless his behavior is contrary to society's mores and standards. This would lend one to believe that mental illness is not so much a biological condition as it is a cultural response to that condition. A person who is obsessive compulsive in the United States, could very well be perceived as fastidiously clean somewhere else. In the United States he/she may be encouraged to seek chemical treatment, but in another country they would most likely just ignore the person's idiosyncrasies.

As far as what this has to do with Tao, I think it comes back to the idea of Virtue. Chapter 38 of the Tao Teh Ching addresses this by saying:

Failing Tao, man resorts to Virtue.

Failing Virtue, man resorts to humanity.

Failing humanity, man resorts to morality.

Failing morality, man resorts to ceremony.

Now, ceremony is the merest husk of faith and loyalty;

It is the beginning of all confusion and disorder.

So essentially disorder occurs, not from a man's actions, but man's perceptions of those actions in a cultural context. The further wrapped up he becomes in culture and social mores, the more he finds himself trapped within that culture, hence mental illness is very rare in the individual, but common within the "groups, parties, and nations."

I hope your doing well,

Aaron

I had to leave my cats with my twin brother when I left my old home. He left them with my other brother who let them outside. Now keep in mind they're indoor cats and they've never been outside since I've had them, well you know what happened, they ran away. So for the last two months I haven't heard anything about them, but today I got an e-mail from my twin brother telling me that one of my other brother's neighbors is taking care of one of them and the other is hiding out down the street at an abandoned home. So Bebe and Boots are alive... honestly a tear came to my eye. Yes I am attached, I admit it.

Is that synchronicity, well for me at least, or what?

Anyways, yes Mewtwo, point well taken.

Aaron

Apocalypse aside, what I'm beginning to understand more and more each day is that people oftentimes are more than happy to tell you how your religion or idea is bad, but they will rarely see any flaws in their own. This is precisely the reason why we need to remember to advocate religious expression and freedom of expression.

Aaron

No,...The Tao is not ineffable. If The Tao was ineffable, Lao Tzu would not have been able to discern The Tao to write about it.

 

It is a matter of context. Buddha told the ignorant that the self is impermanent,...and yet he said the Other Self, the Tathagata, is permanent. Of course the ego self of the six senses is impermanent.

 

The ignorant cannot understand The Tao. This is simply because the six senses can only know motion. To understand the Tao, one must observe The Tao from beyond the six senses. To understand the Tathagata, one must transcend the six senses.

 

If you think The Tao is ineffable, then you allowed religious indoctrination to blind you, and for you, The Tao will be ineffable. To understand stillness, one must uncover the stillness upon which their motion persists.

 

V

V Marco,

I think you've misunderstood what Lao Tzu was saying. The fact that he clearly defines this in the first two lines of the beginning of the Tao Teh Ching and that you've missed this point leads me to believe that you need to study the text a bit more before you comment on the philosophy.

Chapter One

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.

Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.

As the origin of heaven-and-earth, it is nameless:

As "the Mother" of all things, it is nameable.

So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner essence:

As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.

These two flow from the same source, though differently

named;

And both are called mysteries.

The Mystery of mysteries is the Door of all essence.

- Lao Tzu, Tao Teh Ching, tr. John C. H. Wu

So, Lao Tzu was saying that the Tao was ineffable and could not be discerned through the senses, but the tao (notice small case) of the world that we perceive can be talked about. If it helps think of Tao as translating roughly into "way".

In regards to your religion and philosophy comment and your knock about my comment regarding chopping wood and carrying water, I think you're clearly being hypocritical here, what you really mean to say is that everyone is wrong except you.

As far as the "enlightenend man" who snapped his fingers and brought a fish back from the dead, well that's a neat trick, but I'm sure David Blaine could pull it off flawlessly. Since a lot of modern illusion has been gleaned from Indian "mystics", it would be a safe bet that they knew how to pull this off too. For instance Blaine can levitate on the street with nothing around to support him. He can tear things up into bits after they've been written on and cause them to reappear, writing still intact. These were the staples of the "siddhas" of the time. Nothing remarkable, in fact anyone could probably pull off the fish trick with a little training.

As far as ineffable goes, I would have to remind you that it is subjective, thus it has little meaning in the light of experience.

So I say again, throw away Buddhism, Taoism, and all the other religions and philosophies, and start from scratch. Examine your life, what is you, where you began and what you were before you began and then you will begin to get some answers to your questions.

Aaron

edit- ChiDragon, I thought you would've been the first to quote Chapter 1, you must be getting rusty.

You have a talent at hiding your hostility and aggression in a load of spiritual robes i'll give you that, i'd be surprised if there was anyone who can't see through it though for what it really is.

 

Hummm,...and what do tell is it really? Except for top posts, All my posts are reflections of the posts they respond to. Aaron is obviously a masochist, and thus the responses mirror back to him what he his giving. This post is a response to your sad comments of "hostility and aggression."

 

Aaron believes that the Now is what his six senses tell him,...but we don't know your opinion,...for like Aaron, you choose ad homenim over reasonable content.

 

Personally I could care less about your surprise of anyone not seeing this alledged hostility and aggression,...I stand by my every post as evidence that each response mirrors the post being responded to.

 

Unfortunity, most are absorbed in little games, and as such are only interested in little games. Instead of Exploring the Now, the topic of this thread, they prefer to disrupt what they don't wish to understand. However, to explore the Now,...all that psychobabble must be let go. This doesn't happen because most rather cling to mediocrity.

 

As Wilber said, "Human Potential movement got derailed and was replaced by this therapeutic self-expression, self-acceptence movement."

 

http://www.thetaobum..._1entry322794

More redirection and self justification for one's actions, based on faulty logic and a misunderstanding of compassion. You say nasty things, not because you're "mirroring" but because you're pissed off, but then truly enlightened people don't get pissed off, so you have to justify your inability to be kind and compassionate to everyone regardless of circumstance.

I ignored your hostility, not because I'm a masochist, but because it has no bearing on who I am. You can wish me a short life all you like, but it will have no bearing on whether my life is shorter or not, the only bearing on that is my diet, genetics, and lifestyle. I could say, "how dare you say such a thing to me!" But what does it change? Nothing. You are still locked into this idea that knowledge somehow leads to enlightenment, but it doesn't. Debate about the "now" all you want, but your new view isn't going to lead you or anyone else to their original nature.

In closing, very little of what you say can be attributed to Buddha himself, but rather to devotees that came along several centuries later. Now if you could give me a quote from Buddha, not one attributed to Buddha by someone who came along 500 years later, but to Buddha, then I would say what you're talking about is related to Buddhism. Almost everything I've studied regarding Buddhism has to do with Buddha, Bodhidharma, or Zen, so my actual knowledge regarding Mahayana and Theravada is slim at best. I have read a great deal about what Buddha said, and from that knowledge I've come to understand that most people that came after Buddha bastardized his teachings.

I don't think Buddha intended for his teaching to become the basis of an institutionalized religion. From what I know about what he said, I don't think he would've laid down the Ten Precepts for instance, nor do I think he would've been keen on how many of the later masters/teachers/monks describing enlightenment. Buddha taught freedom, the Buddhists teach reliance, plain and simple.

Now what I can agree on is that one should not allow the idea of "Now" to influence their own understanding of "now", but rather that one's experience should shed light on it. That means that, in my opinion, you don't describe now, you don't define now, you tell others to investigate now and then if they choose they can come back and tell you what they've learned. That's the only way for someone to have an honest, unbiased understanding of "Now". That's what I was saying, not that you're wrong per se, because there is no such thing as right or wrong, it's subjective, but rather that it is better to allow someone to examine it unfettered by religiosity and ideology.

Now if you could ever refrain from attacking people, then justifying those attacks by making snide

comments you believe will get under the skin of those people you're talking to, then we could begin to have a discussion about this, but you just say, "NO! This is how it is, you don't know!" Rather than, I will think about this and get back to you.

So what does your belief in now mean if you throw it out and examine now without preconceptions or beliefs, where do you go from there?

Aaron

You are one dense individual. First, you have yet "poke a hole" at anything,...unless you truly believe that saying "Undivided is just your theory", is somehow poking a hole.

 

Undivided Light is nothing new,...the equation E=mc² certainly points to it. Just because you see the World as a flat, dreary place, that is all there is,....and that you carry water both before and after enlightenment, is the insane nonsense of someone smothered in their six senses.

 

I've mentioned examples over and over and over of how this relates to Buddhism,...for example I recently reposted the story of Angulimala, and numerous other things, and it goes right past you like a child in his own little world, focused on a toy in a store.

 

As you have been bringing up "poke holes", and you fail to present anything in that regard, my impression is that you are desireous for me to "poke holes" in your BS. For example how you spent enough time reading my posts,....1. that's great, now go away,...and 2. you haven't read my posts at all, so stop saying you have.

 

The quotes I use are never OUT OF CONTEXT to the context in which I'm using them. That is simply a testament to your neurotic, aspergers-like instance that everything fits perfectly into your little world.

 

And finally,...your bizarre statement that a nine-planed holographic matrix would have no connection or application with spiritual reality is moronic.

 

As for brands, school, gurus, etc., that is rude and a blatant ad homenim. My posts have clearly stated that I has no interests in teaching, teachers, gurus, schools, beliefs or other nonsense that steps between people and their direct experience. As for your posts, they prove that you are an arrogant, dishonable person, uninterested in any reasonable debate, dialogue, or inquiry.

 

Your posts show that you are devoid of having any interest in contributing to the evolution and liberation of humanity. And I would welcome anyone, who wish to waste their time, to follow your posts through any thread and find something to the contrary.

 

May your life be short, so to begin anew, with less irritating baggage, for any breakthoughs in this incarnation appear quite unlikely.

 

V

Finger point, finger point, name calling, circular argument... etc. This is the way you behave in a debate. You ignore those things you can't argue and focus on those that you can. Did Sri Aruobindo say "undivided light" or "light", that's just one example. As far as poking holes in your theories, I spent three or four replies poking at your idea of Now, but you failed to see the reasoning, and thus it was obviously wrong. I think the reason you hang out here is that you can't hang out on Buddhist forums because they would've given you the boot long ago. Taobums is more lenient when it comes to freedom of expression.

You're absolutely right, I'm not interested in liberating people. Track my record and you'll find I've been saying a few things for as long as I've been around, one that morality is an illusion, that there's no such thing as good and evil, that enlightenment is experiential and any attempt to describe it is pointless conjecture, and that beliefs, religions, philosophies, and politics in particular lead people away from their original nature, preventing them from experiencing their original nature. Lastly what you're attempting to do is save people, i.e. liberate people, and I see no need to liberate anyone, because there is nothing wrong with people, rather what's wrong is the illusion that people are taught to believe that something is wrong with them.

Also, I'm not the only one that's picking up on the quotes out of context thing, if I was I'd happily admit that I was wrong in that respect. In the end this doesn't matter to me so much, which is the reason I have two responses a day on average in regards to this and you have seven or eight. I just don't like seeing people suffer when they don't have to and your teachings, Buddhism, Christianity, and all the other religions and philosophies out there just propagate this suffering. I don't need quotes to point this out, just watch the daily news. If people need any kind of liberation it's liberation from all religion and philosophy. Again philosophy is the domain of fools and I would add religion as well. Don't take this as a personal assault on you, I don't dislike you in the least, if anything I feel for you, because I know how religion can screw with your mind. Maybe someday after you've spent enough time you'll see what I'm talking about, but unfortunately the more ego stroking the religious receive the less likely they are to recognize the folly of their ways.

Aaron

edit- Correction. I've only come to a view of religion and philosophy diverting one from their true spirituality in the last year or so, but I've viewed religion as an institution as being harmful for quite awhile. Just wanted to clarify.

But once again, you talk of poking holes in a theory, and once again you poke no holes.

 

A relationship with transcends continents and cultures, from the Maya Popal Vuh 9 aspects of gods, to the eight spokes of Buddhism's Wheel of Dharma upon a center hub. If you observed nature as it is, nothing is greater or less than nine.

 

The creative force within duality arises through the perceived separation from zero. To create progeny, the nine gods of the Popal Vuh for example, that is the six lesser or boundary gods who rule the six convex spectral planes, and god seven, the three aspects of zero, must work as one to propagate the many.

 

If you wanted to poke holes, you had months and months to do so in the 'What is Light' thread. But you did not, because you can not.

 

'All matter is just a mass of [divided]light.' Sri Aurobindo

The only reason you don't see the holes is because you never respond to them. You cannot prove the idea of undivided light, it's just your own theory regarding light. The quote at the end, does Sri Aruobindo say "undivided light" or just "light"? I'll bet you he just says light, not undivided light, but you take it out of context, add your own addendum and think everyone is going to be fooled into believing it.

So tell me how what you're espousing even remotely corresponds to Buddhist teachings? You take quotes from Western Philosophers and attribute it to Eastern Philosophy and in so doing repeatedly take the quotes out of context. Anyone who spends any deal of time examining your arguments sees this, but you never respond to the criticism, rather you create circular arguments or attempt to push the conversation into an entirely new direction, so I ask you again, are you trying to create your own brand of Buddhism?

That's a simple question that you haven't answered. If anyone here believes otherwise, please speak up, but I've spent enough time reading your posts and figuring out your modus operandi to figure that out. You are stuck on concepts that have never been proven or realized by anyone who has actually been attributed to achieving enlightenment or awareness. The quotes you do make are in most cases out of context. Perhaps this is the reason you've never published anything in regards to these topics.

On a theoretical basis, undivided light is a fascinating concept, in particular when one thinks of the holographic universe, etc., but trying to apply it to a spiritual context, when it's never been explained or perceived by anyone thus far is silly. Just admit it's a theory and let it go at that, otherwise provide the factual evidence.

Before I finish, let me ask you again, because I want an honest answer, are you trying to start your own brand, school, sect, of Buddhism? If not, then what school do you actually follow and provide detailed evidence of this, rather than out of context quotes.

Aaron

No,...VMarco is not speaking negatively about Taoism. Nor could it be said that VMarco knows nothing of Taoism. On the otherhand, it could be said that VMarco knows more about Taoism than Marblehead's westernized interpretation of Taoism, filtered through his mediocity. P.S....thanks for the permission to label you.

 

You are obviously very upset (not very good Tao) regarding Gurdjieff's levels of man. It is unfortunate that people like yourself cling to an ego based view spirituality. Ken Wilber called it the Conspiracy of mediocity. He explained it like this:

 

"To dare to even speak about radical transformation, let alone call other people to a higher level, is against the unstated rules. And of course, one's definitely going to be put in one's place for doing something like that. But unless the possibility of genuine transformation is actually declared, unless one is willing to demonstrate it publicallyand to call other people to the same, no one is even going to know that it's possible. And than unknowingly, everybody's going to be participating in the conspiracy of mediocrity.

 

The conspiracy of mediocrity is basically the conspiracy to express your own ego instead of transcending it or letting go of it. The idea has become "if I can really emote and express my self-contriction with sincerity, I'm somehow spiritual". Actually, people who are involved in this boomeritis even deny the importance of Enlightenment or Awakening, because that's saying some states are higher than others - and we shouldn't be so judgemental. But guess what? Some states are higher. And so the entire raison d'etre gets tossed out because it offends the pluralistist ego.

 

The spiritual experience, which ideally should be a stepping stone to less ego and greater transparency, has become a victim of our therapeutic culture, where we don't make judgements because that would hurt egoic self-esteem, and so all we do is embrace, console, and celebrate the personal self. Spiritual practice has become nothing more than a form of therapy where self-acceptance rather than ego-transcendence is the goal. And the problem is that therapists are basically pimps for samsara. They want to hold onto the egoic self-contraction and make it feel good about itself.

 

This conspiracy of mediocrity is very unfortunate. The great promise of the human potential movement was very straightforward - there are higher human potentials. Now, from the therapeutic culture, people say, "wait a minute. you're saying there are higher potentials, so does that mean I'm lower? because that can't be right". All of a sudden it implied a judgement, and nobody's allowed to be higher because that means someone else is going to be lower. And you're not allowed to call anybody lower; therefore nobody's allowed to be higher.

 

So the Human Potential movement got derailed and was replaced by this therapeutic self-expression, self-acceptence movement, which catastrophically prevents higher transformation and mystical breakthroughs. What is missing in the New Age Community is real intellectual vigor. Under the therapeutic culture, if you feel good, you're enlightened. That is mediocrity, and a conspiracy toward mediocrity."

 

Thus, in our current therapeutic society people don't want to see that what they thought was meaningful may actually be meaningless.

This has nothing to do with Taoism. You obviously haven't read the Tao Teh Ching if you want to attribute what you've posted here to the idea of Taoism or the Sage. I might recommend reading the actual text, rather than books about it. To be honest I'm not sure how you can even attribute this to Taoism.

Some observations- you love to try to push buttons when people disagree with your ideas. I think it's the only way you feel you can compete on equal terms. In this case you are denigrating Taoism knowing it will evoke a response, then you can attribute whatever abysmal failure occurs as a result to other people's hostile response to your comments, rather than your own intellectual inferiority. I think the number of times you resort to name calling, finger pointing and labeling seems to indicate that you have an inability to accept that you've lost an argument and that you are emotionally invested in your arguments. I don't think anyone here doesn't see the sheer malevolence you exhibit when your feelings are hurt.

The fact that you chose a thread that has much to do with diminishing the ego, to stroke your own to culmination, is not only puzzling, but a bit absurd. Before you continue to present your knowledge as wisdom, perhaps you will like this quote, since I think it speaks to you...

"Have done with learning,

And you will have no more vexation.

How great is the difference between "eh" and "o"?

What is the distinction between "good" and "evil"?

Must I fear what others fear?

What abysmal nonsense this is!"

-from Chapter 20 of the Tao Teh Ching by Lao Tzu

In closing I would love to see an end to this pseudo intellectualism being masqueraded as spirituality and religious idealism.

Aaron

V,

 

Have you made a serious study of Taoism? From what you have written above it seems to me you have imputed all sorts of things onto Taoism which I don't recognise ... like 'desiring to be in harmony with the prison of life'. Where does Taoism say life is a prison and that one should want to be at harmony with it?

 

Maybe you have been reading Shakespeare and have confused life with Denmark ... but even then "I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" ... if life is for you a prison ... then maybe thinking makes it so???

 

A.

+1 for the Shakespeare quote and Hamlet no less.

Aaron

As nothing is greater or less than nine,...the Nine Consciousness' are uncovered in all practices that transcend the 6 senses. The Nine Consciousness' are implied in Bon, through the 9 point swastika, through Vajrayana's nine pointed vajra, through Gurdjieff's enneagram, through the Nine Levels of Taranatha's Consciousness model, possibly related to the nine stages of the Nyingmapas, the Egyptian Ennead, and through the nature of Light itself (see 'What is Light' thread).

 

V

V Marco,

Could it be that your designing your own brand of Buddhism? Well I'm sure you wont answer this, you have a tendency to avoid comments that poke holes in your theories. Good luck convincing the masses to follow Marcoism.

Aaron

No,...you may have accepted some definition for enlightenment,...to me it's self explanitory,...enlightenment is having a direct understanding, as in being onto- or en- Light. Light is absolutely still. Just increase your speed to 186k mps and you will be like Buddha,...perfectly still,...neither coming or going,...eternal.

 

Of course, to those as yourself, those who limit themselves to the first two Turnings only, Buddha said, "Those who cannot accept that the Tathāgata is eternal, cause misery." (Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

 

Vajrayana uses all Four Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma,...not just the first Turning which introduced a path to end suffering, or the Second, on Emptiness.

 

Vajrayana is a Short Path, whose Bee's collect honey from all applicable sources, so to realize Light in a single lifetime.

 

The Buddha told Ananda, "You still listen to the Dharma with the conditioned mind, and so the Dharma becomes conditioned as well, and you do not obtain the Dharma-nature."

 

"There is no Present in time" is an absolute bodhicitta aphorism,...meaning that, it cultivates right mindfulness. In the Lojong, the most important absolute bodhiciita aphorism is "treat everything you see as a dream."

 

This duality of electrodynamic light is literally a dream. The so-called moving light in this dream is no more real than the light in your dream last night,...or the images on a theaters screen. Just like in a dream, if someone slaps you, you feel it.

 

Can we get out of this dream? The Buddha instructed that the Six Senses is a barrier to get out, and when you are out, you (not the you that you think you are) are perfectly still. Like Light, the Tathagata has not moved a single centimeter in all eternity.

 

How do we merge with Light? We move 186k mps, shedding all time, mass, and energy, and enter perfectly still Light. Of course, like the Buddha, that doesn't mean we have to disgard our dense dream body. We just don't take that condition into the Unconditionality of Undivided Light.

 

This isn't about knowledge,...but gnowledge. Those who know, do not gnow.

 

The relative is grounded in the intellect, in knowledge.

 

Knowledge proceeds through what Buddha called the five skandhas or Aggregates, which includes sensual perceptions and conditioned experience by way of the psyche or personal consciousness. To know is to comprehend noologically, through intellect-based thought, the 6th sense.

 

Gnowledge is to understand through metasensory awareness and unconditioned experience through the thymos or impersonal consciousness. To gnow is to understand by way of gnosis, the contection with Heart Mind.

 

One can recognize the difference through change,...KNOWLEDGE changes,...GNOWLEDGE does not change. Knowledge is ALWAYS in the past,...whereas Gnowledge is ALWAYS in the Present.

 

V

Alright. you either don't read what I say or don't bother to pay attention. You put words in my mouth, make accusations, and seem to generally ignore everything except for what you want to respond to. Maybe someday you'll figure it out, but til then I hope you're happy as a Buddhist and apparently a hypocrite.

Aaron

Sereneblue,

I would discount much of what you hear about Buddhism on this board. Although I would suggest not studying Buddhism at all, but rather begin to inquire into who you are from your own experience, if you are hellbent on learning about Buddhism seek the advice of Matt Black or some others who seem to really exemplify the "spirit" of Buddhism. "Real" Buddhists do not argue or point out what is right or wrong, they simply practice. I see that most of the people I consider to be "real" Buddhists have migrated away from this forum or don't participate in these discussions, and I would suggest it is for a very simple reason, but rather than offend people, I will not say what that is, but rather leave it for you to decide. I'm not a Buddhist mind you, so there's no reason for me not to. If I do participate it's in the hopes I might shake someone out of this rigid need for ideology and belief systems, so that they might begin to experience things as they are, rather than as they are defined to be.

Aaron

Yes, you have far too many predispositions to grasp the importance of the inquiry into Now.

 

For example, how do you know you chop wood and carry water after enlightenment,....are you enlightened? Or does that ignorant quote simply make your beliefs more palatable?

 

By the way,...I initiated this thread,...why are you here? You don't feel any need to recognize the Now. So are you here simply as an agitator,...stirring up ad hominem in the same habitual way found in most of your posts? Wanting to save people from VMarco's inquires into beliefs that step between sentient beings and their direct experience?

 

Honestly,...any slightly considerate person would be ashamed of themselves to post the things you post.

 

As for the Now,...believe what you will. The topic of this thread is Exploring the Now. You offered your propaganda (over, and over, and over), it has been received,...thank you. For others however, the real Present has nothing to do with Aaron's six sense view of reality.

 

Regardless of your beliefs, no "I" can experience the Now,...except Aaron's "I" of course,...but we can't all be Aaron. Some of us want to make own honest inquiry.

 

Fundamentally you have such a Christian personality. For example, the Bible says, "No bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord, not even to the tenth generation." No biggie,...it says what it says, although newer translated versions of this law, which penalizes children for their parents' indiscretions, smooth out the wording; for example, the New American Bible now says: "No child of an incestuous union," an expedient shift in meaning, considering that finding a nonbastard child today is somewhat like seeing someone who doesn't have a tattoo.

 

But here's the Aaron crux,...like Christians who say that God the Father changed, and now we can be saved through Jesus, the Son and even bastards can go to heaven,...as if they personally met with this god and discussed it (although Jesus specifically said that he did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it, Matt 5:17),...Aaron does the samething.

 

Aaron is like a Christian,...he makes it up, in his illusory perceived now, to harmonize with his accumulated beliefs. The truth that there is no Present in time, upsets the logic of his six senses to such an extent, he must, in post after post, warn people of VMarco's terrible beliefs about the Now,...in response to the same posts where VMarco argues that all beliefs should be discarded to uncover the Now.

 

Honestly,...I think I've cracked up laughing while reading every one of your feeble posts.

 

V

If I said I was enlightened, what would that mean? I say enlightened and you grasp an idea, a definition from what you've learned about it, attach it to the idea, and thus decide whether or not I am or am not, based on what you've learned. Be done with knowledge. So long as you search for enlightenment you will never find it.

These answers you seek, the definitions you set down are not answers at all, there are no answers, just experience. Is there a now? Is there not a now? It doesn't matter. You seek something that can't be sought, because you have not lost it in the first place, you just don't see it, even though it is right there.

Ahh... salvation, nirvana, buddhahood, these are all illusory, they do not exist, because there is nothing to save or transcend. You simply are and so long as you are not satisfied with being what you are, then you will seek to be something else and everyone who offers you something to help you alleviate what you believe is the disease of being, you will run after them seeking it, just like a miner who hears of gold. And perhaps when you find it, if you follow the path to the end and hold it, or not hold it, as the case may be, you may also find satisfaction, or find what you were searching for, but in the end that is illusory as well.

You find the answer, but the world does not disappear. You ate, shat, and slept before, you will eat, shit, and sleep afterwards. Oh but now I see the dream, well the fact is you were never dreaming, rather you were simply living, and now that you see things differently, are you no longer living?

There is no salvation or cessation from being the "you" you have become in this life. If you think the answer lies in "now" then you are misleading yourself.

The problem with so many people on this board, and you included, is that you feel you must be teachers, but the fact is so long as you seek to be a teacher, you are never a teacher. We can only be students.

Philosophy is for foolish people. It gives no answers, because the answers are temporal and transient, the only thing that will satisfy your curiosity is experience. When I say give up your beliefs, I am telling you that your beliefs are keeping you from experiencing the actuality of what we are. Go back and examine each and every idea that makes up "you" and tell me what you are. You can't do it, because the you that existed before you became you has no definition, it is an experience. Yet when you experience you before you became you, then you can begin to experience life and see everything that came afterwards with clarity and you will have no questions, because there will be no need for answers.

Also, what's with all the name calling and finger pointing. If you want me to be a Christian, I'll kindly be a Christian, there's really no way for me not to be, because Aaron to you is a Christian, but what I would point out is that there are no Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or Jews, there are just people being defined by those so attached to the temporal, that they can't see them for what they really are. If you stopped defending yourself and trying to misdirect conversations when people start punching holes in your philosophy, perhaps you could begin to see that there is no such thing as truth or untruth, or now or past, there simply is what is.

You're so fond of exercises it seems, so I would offer you one that might help, examine yourself and your children and tell me where you begin and your children end.

Aaron

Over and over I post about letting go of all beliefs, and you consistantly come back that I'm clinging to beliefs, because you believe that having no beliefs is somehow a belief,...thus I must be "vehemently in denial." Go figure!

 

Over and over I point to how your belief in your sentient beingness is a lie,...even Descartes knew it is a lie. "All that I have tried to understand to the present time has been affected by my senses; now I know these senses are deceivers, and it is prudent to be distrustful after one has been deceived once." René Descartes

 

Yet you continually stand by your belief that the "Now" is all around you,...and thus has no importance as to anything. Of course that's the perrogative of your logic,...the truth cannot be known through logic, and as such, I'm quite cautious about using it. The intellect is a deceiver.

 

You do not wish to see your intellect as a deceiver,...no biggie,...you're among the majority. Your intellect is safe.

 

Allow me once more to explain my liberal use of quotes. One reason I enjoy using quotes is for those as yourself, someone uninterested in waking up, who rejects and responds negatively to them, and thus is as a litmus test to see who is on the Short Path. A Short Pather looks impersonally at the message, and without predisposed negativity towards the messenger.

 

Very often what others have to say sometimes arouses and opens new ways of seeing or observing. Just because I agree with U.S. President Ulysses Grant for saying that church property should be supported entirely by private contributions to keep church and state forever separate, does not mean going into a debate about the life of Mr. Grant. Quotations, as I use them, are about the message within the quotation, not the profile of the messenger.

 

Quotations and aphorisms can serve as a mentoring device for those who venture into the liminal zone between duality's sciential sentience and the sapiential consciousness of nonduality, in which direct relationships with authentic teachers are often unavailable. Those already within the liminality between fragmented and unfragmented consciousness quickly recognize the difference between an authentic teaching and a false teaching. A false teacher places conditions upon one's experiences, whereas an authentic teacher does not confer about liberation or enlightenment without advancing specific practices that open the way for direct experience—that is, without a need for faith, belief, or even mathematical assumptions.

 

Whereas the Long Paths see good and evil in the world, the Short Path recognizes the basic goodness in everything, while simultaneously aware of the false that obscures it. I said recognize, not believe.

 

People of faith, such as yourself, only allow for preapproved quotes. I attempt to reach for the most appropriate quote not only for the discussion, but at the sametime, a quote whose author stirs an emotional charge in the reader so to negate my post in full. This makes it easier for me to understanding whom I'm dialoguing with, without the benefit of non-verbal clues accessible in physical dialogues.

 

You have shown yourself in nearly every post (and there have been at least a hundred responses between us), to be a judgmental, belief-driven, aggitator looking to harmonize others beliefs with his own. This is no big deal,...more than 95% of people do it. More than 95% have no interest in reality,...they merely desire dependable descriptions of an objective world that they consider intelligible, and provide them with enough diversions to keep reality away until their death.

 

My responses to you are merely for the record. It is likely that this forum will hold this record for years to come. Thus the people I'm actually interested in connecting with, that is, kindred spirits on the Short Path, may not read this until 2018. They may not even be a member of TTB, but came the post from a Search Engine.

 

Your legacy of denial, disempowerment, limitation, disconnection, belief, etc., are of little interest to someone on the Short Path. At most, your negative orientated posts are clutter to wade through. Do you see my point? Likely not! But the liberation of sentient beings such as yourself does interest me.

 

To someone on the Short Path, that is, dedicated to liberation in this lifetime, the Present is the most important inquiry, bar none.

 

V

V Marco,

Your record means nothing. You're missing the point entirely. You're stuck in this paradigm of "you", the V. Marco paradigm. These things you speak of are all you, nothing more. Now is now, then it is not now, then it is now. Is it all around us? Hmm. I would say that's not true in the least, Now is not us, but it is us. We learn to understand that now is not really there, yet we also learn that it is there. First there is the mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is the mountain. That's simple, most people understand that in their first month of studying Buddhism. In the same way we chop wood and carry water before enlightenment, then chop wood and carry water after enlightenment.

I think what irritates me is that you're posing as a savior, the guiding voice leading those astray to salvation, when there is no need for salvation. There is no now, there is nothing to save. The now we experience, the senses that allow us to experience this world, do not fade once one understands this, nor do they fade when one experiences it, they persist as time persists, merely understanding the basics on an experiential or logical level does not change this.

You brought up this topic because you believe that your theory of undivided light is infallible, that somehow you have understood something that all the men that have come before you have not, except for those few that you use to quote for those unfortunates such as me that seem to be caught up in self.

Let me explain this notion of self to you clearly. The reason that you argue about this is because your beliefs are you, this notion of Now, the not-you, the idea of constant time are all concepts that come from V Marco, not the original you, but the V Marco that has been defined by society to exist, the V Marco that you gauge its worth by the concepts you've learned throughout your life. The original you does not need any of this, it exists not only in the now, but before the now, after the now, and without the now. That original V Marco is not worried about logical debate, because it has nothing to worry about, it's existence is set within the very fiber of everything and nothing.

You think I don't understand what you're talking about, that I haven't had the fortune of experiencing it, but I have, I just realize it as being unimportant, that salvation, an end to suffering, are all tied to the "I" that we have created from our experience in the "Now", or if you want to call it, the past experience. Buddha couldn't give up this notion, this desire for salvation, so he set about teaching that guiding others to enlightenment is the highest and most selfless goal. Jesus, Mohammed, and many others came and did the same thing, but what I will tell you, not as a Buddha or Saint or prophet, but as a man, is that there is nothing that needs saving. We exist, enlightened or not, and if perhaps enlightenment shows it face to us, we will see that it has no face, but when that happens there is no joy or sadness, because in understanding the I that existed before Aaron, the You that existed before V Marco, we touch on nothing that has been divided from the totality of existence.

When you argue and debate this, don't fool yourself into thinking it's High compassion, it's not, rather it's the "you" that believes that no-belief is necessary. I see this all as meaningless because I understand that I don't "NEED" any of this, because my needs are already met in regards to the "I" that existed before I was born, so instead I care for the needs that I must meet as the "Aaron" that came afterwards. When the time comes and "Aaron" no longer exists, then I will still be "I", hence no need to argue or save that I, because it can never be erased, nor remembered, nor forgotten.

Aaron

Curiosity has grabbed me.

 

Please name every church you've been too that has given it's congregration direct experience of God or of the afterlife, thanks.

 

Hmm, I'd also like to know how many preachers/priests/holy men of the church preach from an experience of God, and not just their personal interpretation of whichever religious works they read?

 

An example would be - "My heart opened up and I felt joy, bliss and love, and the Holy Spirit entered into my body!" as opposed to "This holy scripture says to love everyone, or you'll be thrown into the lake of fire!" LOL.

I would ask that you give me the number of Monks, Rinpoches, etc. that have given their students the direct experience of Buddha or a cessation from Dharma (or for that matter an actual experience of Dharma). The problem with religions is that they hide under different guises, but delude people all the same. In order to truly understand who we are we need to be able to explore deep within ourselves and find that part of us that existed before we became Aaron, Mokona, etc. That requires giving up any and all beliefs we've accumulated since that moment.

Aaron

The above are words of a fragmented sentient being,...nevertheless, just because you do not see stars in your daytime, doesn't mean they're not there.

 

In other words, your return to Source is the most important thing in your life, except that you are so distracted, diverted, and dis-integrated that you do not recognize it. The return to Source is presence in the Presence of the Present. Just because very few realize this during their perceived lifetime, does not mean it is not the most important thing.

 

The relative fact that you are a member of TTB suggests that some aspect of your aggregated self is dissatisfied with your fragmentation. But as T. S. Eliot said, "Human kind cannot bear very much reality."

 

To summarize,...your fragmented reality, conjured from sentient beingness, which, depending on the diversions, can not achieve more than being always almost satisfied, may at some point wonder if there is anything more. Some realize that this more cannot be found in the past or anticipation of a future; an inquiry that may lead them to the greatest adventure of all, the Present.

 

Look at a star,...we should know that not only is the light we are viewing in the past, but that because of the curvature of spectral light, it isn't even where we are looking. Relatively speaking, that is no different than the light of the monitor in front of you,...it is in the past. You cannot observe an object in the Present,...what you are viewing is merely a perceived now.

 

The 6 Senses CANNOT detect the Present,...the 6 Senses only observe motion,...motion is within time,....there is no Present in time.

 

It doesn't matter what you believe, or believe that perceived others believe,...the 6 Senses are not viewing the World that surrounds them, but only the World that surrounded them. The 6 Senses can only observe the past,...albeit a fraction of so-called time in the past,...it is not the Present.

 

V

Hello V,

To be blunt, I wonder if perhaps you're a bit hypocritical. You attach so much importance to others giving up their own beliefs, yet you cling to yours so vehemently and deny when anyone calls you on it. The fact of the matter is that now is not important, unless you decide it is important. Now just is, that's it. You can try to logically define it, but the fact of the matter is that much of what you say is nothing more than a logical conclusion, the actual experiences you talk about can't be defined or explained in a corporeal sense, they are incorporeal experiences devoid of senses or thought and definition. When you grasp that, then come talk to me and we can go from there.

Of course you can quote T.S. Elliot (which you've done twice that I've noticed so far, same exact quote), Ekhart Tole (I believe three times, but it may have been twice, same exact quote), and I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that you are clinging to your beliefs in Short Path Buddhism as much as the Christians are clinging to the cross, neither will bring you salvation however. Of course it's fine if you want to continue to live in that delusion if it makes you feel better, but if you really want to start understanding the nature of things, then what you need to do is understand the nature of who you are, and that starts with understanding the nature of the fear within you.

By the way, the mountain is now, then it is not now, then it is now.

Aaron

Actually, the politeness you demand from others would be better served if you read the previous posts before attacking. For example, post #19 says:

 

 

 

Thus, it was already mentioned that neither had the background to convince the other.

 

As for the importance of this topic,...what could be more important? This is the most important topic anyone can engage in. Of course for those like yourself, who give only a cursory glance at posts, sifting out a way to disagree, than yes,...you will get nothing from this most important topic.

 

For someone to suggest this topic is unimportant, they must believe the perceived now is the only now,...and all they need to understand.

 

For those committed to the inquiry of waking up however, they most certainly want to know as soon as possible if something they think is meaningful, may in fact be meaningless. Such a person is dedicated to the Direct or Short Path, and uncovering the absolute Present in this lifetime.

 

"Relative and absolute,

These the two truths are declared to be.

The absolute is not within the reach of intellect,

For the intellect is grounded in the relative."

Shantideva 9.2

This topic is no more important than a bowl of pudding. Importance is something you attribute to it, not something it naturally possesses. So, if I'm hungry, then the bowl of pudding looks very important indeed, because it satisfies that hunger, however if I've eaten my fill, then I don't see much use for the bowl of pudding, at least not right now, so it doesn't seem very important at all.

You seem to waver between three topics, the evil of any religion other than Buddhism, the undivided light that you believe constitutes everything in existence, and the lack of a present time. Now I'm not knocking you for that, those obviously seem very important to you, I'm just asking the question, are they really important or are you attributing an importance that doesn't really exist? If the former, then why? If the latter, then why bother talking about it anymore.

In the old days, from what I understood, Buddhist didn't actively preach, they only taught people that came to them. It seems that many Buddhists in the Western world feel this need to proselytize in the Christian sense, rather than just let it be. Is it any wonder why many in the East look at Western Buddhists with this sort of amusement, like they were watching young children play a game of tag? Tag, you're not enlightened. No, Tag, you're not enlightened. Oh yay, we're all enlightened. Wait that isn't any fun, we're all enlightened except for Xabir, he's it.

You guys do more harm to Buddhism than good, but you obviously fail to recognize that, or maybe you just don't care. As for me, that's fine, anything that keeps people from being sucked into a religion's ideology is a good thing. Hopefully your arguments will inspire people to see Buddhism for what it is, another belief system. Hopefully they wont get involved in it or they'll drop it and then begin to seek real awareness through their own experience.

Aaron

My mistake,...I thought this Hinduism, that you consistantly mention in posts above, was a theistic religion.

 

Eckhart Tolle, in all the writings I read, is certainly a theist, and promotes theism. However, I look forward to his emancipation from such a meme.

 

If you had ever uncovered the Present, you would not only understand that no gods reside there, but that no theist can ever uncover the Present. As I mentioned, conditions cannot enter the unconditional. Thus a "blanket for theism" is quite appropriate.

 

As for faith in Buddhism,...you won't find any suggestion of that in my posts. On the contrary,.."Do not accept anything by mere tradition. . . Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. . . Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your preconceived notions." Buddha taught irreligion.

 

V

And yet you still cling to the beliefs of Buddhism, dharma, karma, and all the other "blessed" theology which you quote like biblical scripture. So I guess according to what you're saying it's not religion you are opposed to, or beliefs, but the wrong beliefs, which you apparently are privy too. I would suggest that perhaps you should examine your own beliefs first, before you start hashing about other people's beliefs.

Aaron

Xabir and V Marco,

Will it help to point out now that neither of you will convince the other of your view or that you may be letting your egos pull you into a discussion that doesn't need to take place? What's the point in this discussion anyways? I'm not sure why this whole "Exploring the Now" thing is even important, especially since it seems to be a baited topic meant to draw people in so that they can be told they're wrong.

Anyways, neither of you will listen and everyone will have this argument anyways. I'll just pop in now and again to let you know who's winning, since I'm sure, from what I've read of your comments so far, that's of some importance to each of you.

Aaron

Haha, Xabir "thinks" he's a badass.

 

I can assure you that you are hardly a blip on the radar, your insight may seem profound to you but it is nothing.

 

If you would like to disagree then test your mettle as you dream.

I can assure you that everything you say seems very arrogant and malicious indeed. Although Xabir may not be what he says he is, and I wont say he isn't, that's for him to decide, at least he's respectful in the way he talks to others and he obviously has a grasp of the nature of compassion. Perhaps, since his grasp of these things seems superior to yours, you should let your ego rest and listen, maybe some of what he's learned will rub off on you.

Aaron

Hello K,

It's much worse than what you read in that article. I'm not even atheist, more along the lines of agnostic, but I was driven from the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous and lost many friends because I refused to believe in an "Intelligent Higher Power", even if I did agree that there could be a unifying force. Remember the United States of America was founded by religious fundamentalists, even if a few of the founding fathers may have been Agnostic (and even fewer were Atheists, Benjamin Franklin being the most famous).

The problem is that it's become more invasive with time. Things that obviously have no place in government still take place, prayer during school assembly, or High School locker rooms. Government funded charities that are run as Christian foundations. But don't think this is all that different from other places in the world, remember that historically religions in every corner of the world have persecuted non-believers, not necessarily by their own hands, but the hands of their followers. America just tends to be more zealous than most first world countries.

It's funny, I always thought of America as my home, but the more I see of its ugly side, the more I understand I have no place here, that the land I was taught to love is nothing more than an illusion. Anyways, I get worked up when I talk about this stuff, so I think it's better for me to let it go. I don't see talking about it changing much, in order for change to occur people need to want it, and I don't think many people do.

Aaron

I love these Buddhist circle jerks... now if only Vaj would come back, it would be just like the good old days.

Aaron

Twinner...what all did you discard?

 

And what precisely did you "begin" only once you'd discarded...well whatever it is you discarded?

 

Did that include discarding the belief in the need to discard?

 

 

p.s. not trying to be an ass. I have struggled (still am actually) with how in the world one "discards" beliefs. Including, I presume, the belief in the need to discard beliefs.

Discard beliefs. Don't enter into practice with a preconceived notion of what you're trying to achieve. Do you want to achieve true enlightenment or Buddhist enlightenment. If you practice Buddhism you'll be achieving Buddhist enlightenment, exactly what they've told you you will experience. Nothing wrong with that, but I do believe that, although Buddhists have scraped the surface of enlightenment, in the end it is just an illusion that they've created, to justify giving up the former "illusion". So once you realize this you need to throw it out the window and begin from where you began. Once you do that, then you can truly start to experience who you are.

Also, although it seems hypocritical, and by definition is, there's nothing wrong with believing in discarding beliefs, because essentially it's just saying, I wont ascribe to any one thing, I'll examine who I am from the raw original nature from whence I came. It starts by examining you, I, or whatever you want to call it, without any preconceived notions of what you are. In other words don't go into meditation or contemplation believing it's an illusion because people told you that's what it was, in the same way, don't believe it's a deep inner attachment to the world around you, just examine it as you would a brand new object you've never seen before. Examine it and determine what it is, then once you've determined that, then you can come back and follow any belief system you want to.

Aaron

edit- I never addressed what you begin... well to be honest you have to decide that for yourself, but what I meant was the practice, you begin the practice of awareness without preconceived notions or beliefs.