nac

That's great! Sorry for the terrible wording. Taoist philosophy however, is not only idealistic, it's actually animistic: all things are infused with the life spirit, etc... Zen rejects this concept and hence it's not idealistic in this respect. I'm not using the word "idealism" as an insult or anything, but as recognition of a philosophical stance.

I mean as a philosophical grounding. There's nothing wrong with templates. The Buddhas are "empty" ideals. PS. (philosophical grounding) ... where you're asserting action/effects by forces other than mundane phenomena, or deriving mundane phenomena from something supra-mundane. Or even choosing to look at things that way. That's plain idealism whichever way you look at it, whether it's infused with it's "creations" or external to it. Utterly incompatible with Dawkins-ite philosophy. Zen on the other hand, (along with most schools of Buddhism) takes the position of "nothing external" or "nothing else". Anyway, got to go. cya later!

Oh for heaven's sake, I haven't said you can't be a skeptical Taoist or Advaitin! Idealists make great skeptics and rationalists, but idealism is still idealism.

It's still skeptical idealism, a school of philosophy. (although less of it than usual) I'm not saying you can't be a skeptical Taoist or Advaitin! Visit Dawkins' Philosophy subforum and you'll see what I mean. Buddhism has idealism too, but comparatively less than any other eastern tradition I've seen. It's nearly absent in Zen from the philosophical perspective, but there's lots of it from the practical standpoint.

In conclusion, If you like platonic idealism or "spirituality" better: go with Advaita/Taoism/... If you like modern monistic philosophies like materialism or hardcore skeptical atheism (of the Dawkinsian kind) better: go with Mahayana/Zen/... Fin. This is the only major difference in perspectives that I've been able to detect. The only thing which can cause problems beyond this is that Taoism is pushing the boundaries of idealism, while Tibetan Buddhism is pushing the limits of materialism, but that's only to be expected in any form of rigid, dualistic separation. Am I wrong?

... as long as one doesn't start believing it's already "out there" somehow, sure, why not? Eg. what exactly does it mean to say that the field "cares for all of the flowers without discrimination"? That's obviously untrue, as some plants have way more advantage (space, height, access to sunlight, fertility of soil, etc) than others. Not to mention just as it "creates", it also "takes away" once autumn arrives, but I digress. This is obviously just an analogy, never mind all that ranting. Please try the play sometime and tell me what you think. It's quite short. PS. Hmm, maybe the Project Gutenberg edition will be better, I don't know: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6521

Vajrahridaya: Many E-Sangha members used to say this about non-abiding enlightenment: "There are no enlightened beings, only enlightened actions." I sincerely doubt all Buddhists (especially Zennists) are going to support the idea that "destination" is an apt description of Buddhist enlightenment. Anyway, just my personal opinion.

We can see that.

The quote is taken from the Richard Dawkins forum. It was written by a hardcore atheist moderator.

Personally speaking, I have gone though something like a mildly grayish late afternoon of the soul. I'm heartened by the fact that according to Zen, greater the doubt, greater the satori. They say tantra and visualizations can help you bypass this step at the cost of occasionally making you a little crazy. PS. Thought I might as well chip in, since the rest of the Buddha club is already here.

I guess there's just so far you can safely roll your eyes in disbelief before death sets in.

Er.. You don't think Vajrahridaya intends to irritate you into seeing your existence as dissatisfactory, do you? PS. I don't think it's a very Buddhist attitude to call spiritual seekers who see life as good "deluded". Classical Japanese scholars saw Buddhism as the essence of leading a good, pure life.

You don't think, that's why... no, can't be.

There's no abstraction involved as such, but yeah, according to Mahayana there are many layers of truth. Tibetan Buddhism uses two: relative and absolute. Far Eastern schools, especially those influenced by Tiantai, (Lotus Sutra school) sometimes use a three level analysis: illusory, relative and absolute. I quoted this in another thread: I'm not sure where abstractions come in, except in attempts to conventionalize inexpressible "absolute" truths. I'm not a great fan of the idea of analyzing "truth" in layers, but it's useful in some cases. "Got them"?

Sure, the endless ending of suffering from moment to moment through perfectly skillful action, etc etc, but isn't "destination" or "permanent state" a bit of a misnomer for it? In Buddhism, we try to balance both at the same time. Dangerous, huh?

Vajrahridaya: The tetralemma must be applied over and over to itself as well as everything else. There is no such thing as a final destination or permanent resting place. So can Buddhist enlightenment be said to exist?

How do you know? And who's "they"?

I saw this recently and just thought it might be relevant to this topic...

It all comes down to how one acts. PS. Damn this head cold. I'm signing off for the day.

Eh?

Marblehead: See?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, dwai did.

The point is, All is One doesn't necessarily => everything matters, or vice-versa. It doesn't logically follow at all. And this doesn't have to be their motivation either: