nac

Thanks, Marblehead. No, I think it's better to give full explainations, especially when asked. Thanks, it all makes sense now. Which one was Taoism originally closer to, if any?

Like you did, you mean.

play along (with someone or something) 1. Lit. to play a musical instrument with someone or a group. The trombonist sat down and began to play along with the others. Do you mind if I play along? 2. Fig. to pretend to cooperate with someone or something in a joke, scam, etc. I decided that I would play along with Larry for a while and see what would happen. I don't think I want to play along.

Vajrahridaya: Taoism has teachings on Emptiness and everything... Zhuo Ming-Dao: True, Samsara = Nirvana in Buddhism. And enlightened being is supposed to transcend either.

Thanks for your efforts. Just asking. _/\_

I'm not entirely sure, but I can make some shrewd guesses. Okay okay, I made a bet with my brother about how much trash the mods are going to take before suspending me. Even I didn't think they'd do it on my first go without any warnings. I already had a warning level of 10%. That means I've been banned before, but I refused to apologize. TBH no, certainly not if the mods decide you're being polite and honest, but the debate never stops. E-Sangha has a LOT of members, some of whom will actually take your side. If they find the topic interesting, the debate will probably go on long after you've left, unless it spawns a flame war. A few E-Sangha members are Taoists with an interest in Buddhism like Daozen, who joined this forum a few months ago on my recommendation but hasn't posted since. He was probably scared away by Taobum's unique take on moderation. Superstitious topics are immediately laughed away from E-Sangha, unless of course it's traditional, approved superstition. But nothing New Agey (or plain stupid) gets past the mods. There are also some de facto Taoists like Erime who are convinced they're Zen Buddhists. Actually, they're somewhere on the spectrum between Taoism and Zen. Many real Far Eastern sects used to be like that. Wayfarer64: Have you really talked to Robed Buddhists? They don't act like us at all. All the monks in E-Sangha at least are unbelievably joyful and rational at the same time. On the other hand, I remember a Pure Land Taiwanese layman who said that many modern Chinese monastics are rather suspect. This kept him suspicious of Buddhism for a long time, almost until his old age.

Don't become irrationally averse (opposite of attachment) to a neutral word. Reify is an actual term used in science and philosophy. Look up it's meaning and use it when appropriate IMO. Protest when you think it's being misused.

I ask for forgiveness if that's what I did. BTW I've been banned from E-Sangha until August 22.

Do you mind if I ask a few beginner's questions on early Taoist philosophy? Eg. Did Taoist philosophers really consider all forms of property to be theft, or were they just being polemic?

Have compassion for the unenlightened. PS. Thank Buddha for Taoists. In E-Sangha, politically incorrect "flaming" of any religion will get you suspended within 2 seconds. Then again, they've already been sued many times for all sorts of crazy reasons.

On second thoughts, I've come down with a cold today, so I'm taking a break. In the meantime, this Wikipedia article expresses it much better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathagatagarb...tagarbha_in_Zen Hence if you want to identify the Buddha Matrix with your "True Self," it's best not to call such a teaching Buddhist at all. The Tathagatagarbha isn't "one" or "many", but "just so". (this is what? the 3rd or 4th time I've said the same thing, sorry. BTW how is separating or reifying a fixed, eternal "true Self" from "all phenomena" different from Descartian dualism?) On this point at least, Chinese Buddhism seems to surpass Hindu philosophy. I don't mean that in the sense that Buddhism is somehow "better" than Hinduism. No way, merely that Buddhist philosophers seem to have reached the point of Hindu understanding, but have kept reinventing, clarifying and refining their doctrine beyond it. (or maybe they just haven't disseminated their ideas in the same way as Hindus, I dunno...) Of course, that doesn't necessarily make it more true, accurate or superior in any way, only maybe more detailed. What do you think? Gee. If you want clarifications on minute details of Far Eastern Buddhist doctrine, there's nothing else for it, you have to visit E-Sangha and talk to people like Huifeng, Huseng, Astus, etc. in the East Asian Buddhism subforums. xabir2005 is the only doctrinal expert we've got here. Hmm, do you think mind-body dualism is essential to any Buddhist view?

More or less, yeah. If I ever turn into a hopeless idealist, I'll happily embrace Hinduism or Taoism. When did I say there is such a thing as Absolute Reality? How can you call something Absolute Reality when there's nothing real to grasp? The Tathagathagarbha is neither a suffused substratum, an idealistic totality, nor a pantheistic consciousness. Buddhism is the only school of Eastern spirituality I've seen which utterly rejects holistic idealism. How did that happen? Tathagathagarbha is real? Not from my point of view. Then again, I'm not an expert in philosophy or theology. I'm a Computer Science engineer too! (At least I will be when I get my certificate, which should be any month now. We're like the Simpsons caricature Apu, an Indian with a Computer Science degree) I hope that's not what I wasn't doing... PS. Oh yeah, expect a more detailed response later. cya

That's right. Don't listen to Buddhist monks who tell you not to drink anything until all the debates are over. (I'm surprised anyone saw that. I inserted that line in an edit because I didn't want it to spawn meaningless quarrels. Oh well)

Necessary for what, exactly? "Taoist technologies"? Don't you mean Taoist alchemists discovered several useful chemical substances, and many Chinese scientists, engineers and artists were adherents of Taoism and Zen? I doubt the yin-yang theory directly resulted in scientific discoveries any more than ancient Greek, Indian or Middle Eastern metaphysics did. That's the stuff science fiction is made of. (In fact, there really is a science fiction novel about this. Anyone remember what it's called?) PS. Buddhist temples did spread education (reading & writing, classics, logic, mathematics, etc) throughout the eastern half of Asia. Does that count? During the Shogunate, over 40% of Japan was literate. So what you're saying is ... anyone who doesn't think drinking water is better than arguing over it is a crank? Guess Issac Newton should have just eaten that apple.

What you know is wrong. Tibetan Buddhism is a lot like Taoism... With fake medical theories and everything!

I'll read it later. No, the "Atman" is Alaya Vijnana. Like Sankaracharya, I'm using an assignment operator, not equality, only the other way around. That is, "Self" is a misnomer Hindu philosophers use for the Alaya. There's no "glue" involved. No I didn't. The Zen school follows HuaYan metaphysics, in which the Alaya Vijnana is indistinguishable from the Tathagathagarbha, which means it's perfectly interpenetrated. If I'm not mistaken, it's neither the "same", nor "different" for all sentient beings. It's "just so". Saying that it's eternal doesn't really mean anything, especially since -it- (whatever you call the Alaya Vijnana) must die one day. That's like saying "waves are eternal", plain idealism. When the universe ends, mathematics will have nothing to be applied on, so it will come to an end too. The idea of "all things" is an imaginary concept to begin with. Still, this sort of thing has been said before about the Alaya Vijnana. It's even been called the "one mind" and "sacred mind". Do you know what w00 means? Zen teaches not-self too. There is no dwai or nac or any true "persons" here, only phenomena arising from the interpenetrated Tathagathagarbha. What passes for our minds are fallible phenomena without any solid core. The Alaya shouldn't be called our "true self", and it's not a term used to refer to a pantheistic higher soul either. Once again, the concept of "everything in existence" is an imaginary notion which shouldn't be generalized or covered under an umbrella term. Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism are "categorical frameworks" too, you know. In fact, analysis of any kind is only possible on the basis of categorical frameworks. BTW what do you mean by "infinite"?

I disagree that consciousness is the atomic core of all existence. Other than that, I more or less agree with Advaita. Either way, it's a minor issue for me. BTW how do we relate to world except by means of categorical frameworks? PS. I'll post a detailed response later. Sorry, I access the net from my bother's PC.

Look, dwai. Despite the way I've answered your topics recently, I have a deep and abiding respect for the Hindu tradition and it's saints, especially Adi Sankara. He is said to have been kind, gentle and humble, and if nothing else, he's like a mirror showing me an alternative outlook I might have had greater faith in under different circumstances. As things stand however, honesty demands that I confess IMHO the quote you posted is utter crap. Seriously, it's your business if you think that sort of "argument" "soundly refutes and packs away" the Buddhist framework, but here's my (not so perfect) deconstruction of the so-called arguments presented therein, for what it's worth: (note: I don't think for a second that this will convince anybody, but what the hell, I keep trying...) First off, I'd like to say that the Indian system of logical discourse is quite obfuscated compared to the modern equivalents. Hence "proving" something through nyaya barely means anything nowadays, especially regarding the scientific aspects of the dharma. You cannot "prove" something in science by the way, that's only applicable to maths and logic. Science rests wholly on evidence. At any given moment, "science" indicates whatever it's collective body of evidence appears to indicate. Great, we have something in common. I'm not a big fan of Sarvastivada myself. Shankaracharya obviously needed a lesson in evolution. No one can blame him for that. Where does this difference between conscious & non-conscious activity come from? I can't see this fundamental split. Consciousness is a scale starting from randomness then building up to greater levels of complexity, not an atomic, unanalyzable existent. Conscious entities are eddies of randomness on a very large scale, or Newtonian laws on a large scale. Things don't necessarily have to start at one end or the other, but non-conscious is simpler and hence more likely in terms of probability, although it takes longer. Yes... Right. Here's where things fall apart again. What does he mean by "momentary" in post-Abhidharmic Mahayana? I doubt it's supposed to be a conscious "unifying center" at all, just a tangled mass of interconnected dharmas which are all self-less, empty and translucent. If you want to call that the Self, then isn't it just the Alaya under another name? Doesn't apply, considering the argument it rests on. I mean it goes without saying that Hinduism is the superior doctrine within the context of traditional Indian science, just as Confuscianism is the most reasonable philosophy if you go by traditional Chinese culture, science, methods of logical reasoning and philosophical analysis. In light of modern science however, Buddhism has completely superseded either of these doctrines IMHO. As a matter of fact, if you keep applying the reasoning you presented in the OP, you'll find the need for a "glue" tends to disappear altogether. There's no function which a mysterious, atomic, Higher Self serves which can't be handled by lesser dharmas. The world doesn't revolve around any single thing or person forever. For instance, take your ultimate self/source/reality: what is it, precisely? (I hope you haven't enshrouded it in mystery too) If it really has no qualities (nirguna) other than "being", what's the point of insisting that it's higher than other phenomena? How would the world be different if it lacked something which had no properties whatsoever? And isn't being the source of phenomena a "quality"? We might as well break up these functions of the Self and assign them to different causes, phenomena and noumena, until the need for this atomic "Self" becomes a redundant ideal. Like I said, I don't see why any dharma would be more special or primary compared to others in any way or such thing as the final, highest or deepest reality. As for what is perceived as the self, what makes you think that is this self itself? Frankly speaking, this subject looks like a relatively minor point to me. I don't understand why we're still quibbling over it. What exactly changes if all phenomena appear from a single, ultimate Self? What would you do differently if, depending on what you believe, this were or weren't the case? I'm not trying to make anyone reject Advaita. (the world isn't nearly that dramatic ) The strongest criticism I could make against it is that the Buddhist presentation subjectively looks more appropriate and workable to myself. Either way, it's better to quit identifying with doctrinal positions whenever possible and find the truth on your own. What on earth..?? So life is not worth living unless it's solid and comes from an ultimate Self? Stand on your own two , man! I had no idea that I wasn't the only one with this kind of emotional bias. Rest assured, this isn't what Buddhism teaches at all. In fact, it may be precisely the kind of attitude Buddhism stands against. What don't achievements mean? You certainly "exist", in a sense, but only in perfect, core-less translucence. On a lesser plane, from The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever: Then again, this is not so surprising once I remember that the "people" we see here on the net are only fronts, after all. Not only is our behavior with family and friends also a front, but even the way we see ourselves (with or without qualities) are also fronts. This is unavoidable, although it can be minimized and adjusted for maximum benefit. PS. I'm just curious, do you still think this universe is eternal? All scientific evidence points to the contrary, you know. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe Unless our Selves exist somewhere outside this universe, that's when all this charade ends for sure.

(sorry, double post)

What I said is usually true. Calculate the statistics: how many people claiming to be enlightened display enlightened activity? And how should I judge how enlightened the historical Buddha was? I've never met him.

Well, if they say they're enlightened, you can usually assume they're not. Sometimes enlightened people chat online, so maybe you'll meet some here.

People still read Descartes? He was an out and out dualist for Chris'sake! He thought matter and spirit are somehow fundamentally separate and irreconcilable. Like alchemists used to think organic and inorganic matter should never be mixed! If he had at least tried to define what he meant by "I am", I might have agreed with him. But as long as the "I" is declared to be atomic and unanalyzable while it's workings are willingly and enthusiastically shrouded in mystery, such a philosophy is too much to swallow for this "I".

Face it, dwai. There's no obviously discernible "core of being". Logic or evidence doesn't demand there has to be either. Each resulting phenomenon which arises is like a cross-section cut through several layers of "external" and "internal" essentia in Dependent Origination, if you know what I mean. This is not a matter of "subjectivity" or "objectivity", simply cause and effect at work. The feeling of "being" is just another one of these mundane phenomena arisen via causes and consequences. It's not somehow more special/primary/higher/deeper/.. than other phenomena, or some kind of a basic fact of existence more than anything else is...

Several Taoist texts say it's better to be a man than a woman, but as far as religions go, Taoism is one of the most pro-woman out there. Maybe the texts are simply stating facts about life in ancient China, eh?

There we go: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=92265 Let's find out.