nac

Is the link from Great I to No I taught explicitly as in Buddhism? See: http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewt...p?f=12&t=48 If so, then Advaita doesn't really teach unity and it's practically the same as Buddhism. That's correct, nibbana isn't supposed to have any "I" experience remaining at all. Is Jainism the same too? Isn't this... just a little paranoid? Bushmen have tantric methods of attaining liberation? Why does everyone here have such a poor view of modern scholarship? Or did I misunderstand you?

drewhempel: All Buddhists, from the most orthodox Theravadin to the most esoteric Kagyupa, subscribe to the view of Dependent Origination, the Three Marks, etc. That's okay, I'm just saying we shouldn't confuse imagination with truth. Non-verbal teachings? Buddhists are supposed to use whatever skillful means is necessary to help beings attain liberation: We're all "disabled" in relatively minor ways. We only call them disabilities when they are serious enough to have a profound impact on the individual's social life. Hence, the method of teaching always must be suited to the recipient. There's a story in the Tipitaka: The Buddha had a disciple who was unable to comprehend the basics of Buddhist philosophy or memorize the suttas by rote. So the Buddha instructed him to just sweep the grounds of the monastery. He kept at this every day until he was able to attain nibbana on his own. Sorry, I can't remember which Sutta this is from. Cucumber Sage

I agree that Tibetan Buddhism and Advaita aren't that widely divergent at the level of relative truth, but their metaphysics of absolute truth is quite different. Eg. Advaita sees existence as a single self-contained reality -- one world, one true existence. Buddhism on the other hand, views it as an interdependent web of non-conscious phenomena stretching indefinitely along every dimension, with eddies of self-referential subjectivity called "sentient beings" embedded in it. In other words, each of us don't "fit into" the workings of the world-unit, but this conception of a giant, self-contained world-unit is itself imaginary. I don't deny that there are and have always been misogynistic Buddhists. However, even if their beliefs did have doctrinal support, (which it doesn't) that's not the basis on which I evaluate philosophical and religious teachings. In Indian religious imagination, the quality of compassion is attributed to the masculine and power to the feminine. (like black, the color of wet mud, is a symbol of life in Egypt, the polar opposite of western culture) Since compassion is considered so important in Buddhism, it tends to stress masculinity as an unfortunate side-effect. IMO all this cultural garbage has nothing to do with the rationality of compassion and Codependent Origination, which is thus far the only rational means to stop clinging to the world I've found. TBH I don't really care for the Buddhist tradition. It's yet another impermanent, dependently arisen entity that has the potential to contribute to samsaric suffering as much as anything else. It's teachings on the other hand, are priceless and transcendental. I intuitively agree with practically all of them and to not call myself a Buddhist because some lamas sexually harass their students would be like lying to myself. Eg. If the God of the Bible was real, it would be the immoral Catholic priests who are at fault, not Christianity itself. The morality of Darwin (misogyny, racism, ...) has no bearing on the truth of evolution. I mean really, what are we supposed to do? Punish deviant lamas by not practicing compassion? Should we willfully spread suffering in the world because some random practitioners of a religion that we liked or had unrealistic hopes about do the same in the name of compassion? The larger and more popular a religion, the more its cumulative misdeeds. This is the nature of samsara we're always trying to overcome. BTW if you guys really believe that early and tribal societies treated women (or anyone for that matter) better than civilized nations, I have nothing to say. Seriously, you should study some anthropology 101 or something. Cimmeria isn't a real tribe or even an attempt to present a realistic depiction of one. It's basically a reworking of a late Christian romanticized view of the Vikings from the sagas and stories like the Nibelungenlied. Here's what happens in 90% of real tribes: Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/shi/safl/safl05.htm

You can't compare Buddhist cosmology with modern scientific cosmologies of the physical universe! They describe completely different things. For one thing, Buddhism is much more interested in mental phenomena than physical ones. Dependent Origination is more like the basis of Buddhist metaphysics. Like Advaita philosophy or the binary break-up of the Tao in Taoism and Samkhya. It's probably a part of "Right View". Stephen Hawking's works are highly recommended. They've got nothing to do with Buddhism or spirituality, but he makes science easy for engineering student types like me. http://www.collectionscanada.ca/obj/s4/f2/...p04/MQ57700.pdf

What do you mean "go to Science"? Science isn't a philosophy or a religion. We live in an open universe. See: Role of the shape of the universe Me too, obviously, but the Buddha's description of phenomena and the nature of existence is so far the only model derived from spirituality that fits the observed empirical evidence. The mainstream scientific community no longer adheres to the original formulation of the Big Bang theory. (the universe beginning in a singularity) The current model is strongly based on quantum mechanics. That's what I said, except Big Freeze isn't just likely, it's almost certain with the present data. The next most probable outcome is a Big Rip. We agree on every point. With so much quoted information, I sort of expected a contradiction somewhere. (it's likely I'd made a mistake as I'm running a fever atm )

Not just possible, 99.99999% probable. I haven't seen them yet. IMO that depends on several factors including your Abhidharmic model and interpretation. Woah, you have no idea! All of these can fit Buddhism, but I personally disagree with them all. True, we're one-sidedly focused on overcoming such delusions that infest the mind like poison due to it's nature.

Dependent Origination. It's not IMO. DO is thus far the only answer I've discovered in spirituality that avoids sloppy thinking (not to mention wishful thinking) and is 100% consistent with modern science, especially certain findings of quantum physics. The first thing that comes to mind: the Big Bang wasn't a "causeless cause" as previously supposed and it didn't start out as an ideal singularity either. According to DO, a single cause cannot produce manifold consequences when the rest of the universe is devoid of phenomena. Hence, an interdependent web of manifold phenomena must have always existed, and will always exist in some form or other. Best of all, it doesn't even imply that this physical universe will last forever or be continually reborn like a pendulum, because it won't. After the heat death, a handful of minuscule particles will be left as residue within this spacetime continuum. (not even going into multiverse-related theories...)

What exactly was the role of the Tao in the creation of the universe?

That doesn't look like a threat to me, more like a rather rude, flippant remark.

You could try a Tibetan Red Hat (pre-Gelugpa) tradition. More info: http://lhamo.tripod.com/9deity.htm

Thanks for explaining the Taoist take.

I'm not sure, but we Buddhists talk about "abandoning fear and delusion for the welfare of all sentient beings". I don't know we try to lose fear altogether in favor of rationality or what? Vajrahridaya?? Personally, I'm all in favor of losing fear altogether, natural or unnatural.

Thanks, I was wondering if there's something more to it than accepting the harmony of nature. Because doesn't the harmony of nature sometimes cause or even require fear?

Thanks!

Did the Tao literally "create" this material universe? (actively or passively) Or is it more like a principle of creation itself?

Being born as a woman in a patriarchal civilization is bad karma. Being born as a man in a matriarchal civilization is bad karma. Being born black in a white supremacist society is also bad karma. Don't worry, bad karma is never the "fault" of victims. As there's no abiding soul, no being should be held accountable for the fruits of conditions from the distant past. You certainly shouldn't "accept" it as fate, destiny, natural law or something like that! Karma isn't necessarily "fair" or "just". Buddhism is war against karma.

Before modern times, was Taoism practiced in any country other than China and Vietnam? (other than that brief period in Korea where it was wiped out by the invading Japanese, I mean)

Unfortunately, most of these Japanese mountain-ascetic traditions were wiped out as "superstition" during the Meiji era, not long after their anti-Buddhist persecutions. A few survived by taking refuge in Shingon temples and pretending to be Shingon practitioners. They look very similar, apparently. Shinto, on the other hand, bears a greater resemblance to Confucianism if I remember correctly. The indigenous Tibetan Bon religion is a distant relative of Taoism, both of which have their roots in ancient Sino-Tibetan shamanic and divination practices. Bon was also strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism since ancient times via the neighboring Zangzung civilization, an originally Sino-Tibetan member of the Persian cultural sphere. Tibetan Buddhism is, in turn, heavily influenced by Bon. Some of the esoteric practices you mention are also found in India, (like ingestion of alchemical substances, for example) although I didn't know Tibetan Buddhism had actual depictions of Lao Tzu. Maybe Taoism borrowed some of these practices from Indian traditions as well? It's a little hard to believe that these esoteric traditions, spread over such a wide area and separated by natural barriers, all happened to borrow them from Taoism to such a great extent that certain Taoist and Buddhist traditions became superficially indistinguishable from each other. Do you know if Taoism made it further west beyond Tibet? PS. You seem to know an awful lot about Buddhism. Eg. I didn't even know Tibetan Buddhism cared about longevity. If they have teachings on that, I'm sure those were ripped off off Taoism. Were/are you also a Tibetan Buddhist? Marblehead: Yeah, Taoism is very popular in China and Vietnam.

Marblehead: It doesn't seem like the others have anything to say. What's your opinion on the matter?

What do you guys think of this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/ta.../ethics_1.shtml Is it correct about Taoism and non-interference?

All perception is ego, only with some states or configurations of it causing more suffering and others causing less?

Either that, or it may have been her honest, sophistry-free opinion in accord with her understanding. Who knows?

Yup.