nac

Yes, and it isn't Buddhist dogma. The question is, did you think I'd disagree with you on this point? If so, why?

Hello again, good to see you keeping up your brilliant TTC studies. I've been wandering the lowest abysses of the internet like Ksitigarbha himself. Of course I am, just as you are right from yours! Thanks for being a bodhisattva to me. Be well.

OP: Relax. If you really, absolutely can't, and silent meditation no longer works even as a basic coping mechanism, then go see a mental health professional because you're not ready for advanced transformative techniques. Not really, he's stopped spamming years ago. I'm beginning to think you guys love to hate him so much, you've decided to institute an archetypal image of him as Tao Bums' official Buddhist Oppressor for all eternity. Who was the best debater against him? You can also turn that guy into an immortal who vanquishes Vajraji the Demon. And it's not even Buddhist dogma. Yeah? Non-Ziran! (which you won't see as long as you insist on maintaining an observer under all circumstances) (Also, for purposes of completeness: Non-Tao, non-One, non-Virtue, non-Universe, non-Emptiness, non-Buddha!)

Too much of it tends to confuse people. Is there anything else wrong with it? Too little complexity gives rise to crude views that tend to gloss over much of the subtlety, beauty and mystery of the Tao. Can I call myself a Taoist if I'm a supporter of tasteful maximalism (the opposite of minimalism) in everything?

Where does "simplicity" exist? Also in the mind! Complex is not synonymous with "difficult". The eternal Tao is beyond names.

Thanks!

This topic is so frivolous, I'm not even sure it belongs in this forum. OTOH, isn't "serious Taoism" an oxymoron in some ways? I was wondering whether there's a direct counterpart of Mortal Kombat's Raiden and the thunder aspect depicted in Big Trouble in Little China in East Asian mythology. You know, a thunder god with a conical hat. The Shinto deity in charge of thunder is Raijin, which kinda sounds like Raiden, but he looks more like an Indic demon. Unless I'm misremembering, the standard Taoist god of thunder, Lei Gong, looks more like Birdman than anyone else. I present my question to this community because I read somewhere that Raiden's appearance was based on some Taoist thunder god, gods, immortal or spirit. So, any ideas?

I'm sorry. I humbly apologize. I'm kinda woozy at the moment, so never mind.

You're both partially correct: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion Words are in a constant state of flux and reanalysis like everything else. Oh God, not again.

Pardon me, I'm up late ranting pseudointellectual psychobabble again. I'm off. Back on topic, please. About how, er... a Chakravartin Wheel-Turning Emperor of the universe is here on earth.

Actually, I'd have to add one more provisio to the list: 3) Completeness. A view that fully encapsulates yours, but reasons further beyond it in more depth and greater detail can help you reach your own goals better than the one you currently hold, provided that the more sophisticated view is (at least) as rigorous, well-formulated and well-reasoned as your present view.

Uh huh, the problem is that I'm looking for a thunder deity who at least superficially resembles Raiden. Lau Gung's appearance is closer to that of Horus:

To be perfectly honest, I don't agree with your use of the number "one" in this context either. Just to be clear, I mean no disrespect. Your convictions are your own at the end of the day, unless you: 1) make an error in logic, or 2) make a claim leading to empirically testable conclusions that are repeatedly falsified in scientific experiments conducted by multiple, independent consciousness-bearing systems. For example, if someone were to argue that god-fearing societies produce higher standards of living than atheistic cultures, which is demonstrably false. In that case however, I'm afraid one opens oneself to ridicule. The rest of my post reflects nothing more than my own preferences and personal standards of efficiency. How to organize those concepts which survive this onslaught of rationality is merely a matter of housekeeping, hence almost entirely subjective. This is why metaphysical arguments can never be definitively resolved by means of argumentation, due to their very nature.

Yeah. So, no gods who look like heavenly rice farmers, huh?

Sure, I just wanted to point out that realization of the fog's existence isn't necessarily followed by a desire to do away with it for all time. (also, strictly speaking, this fog isn't identical to what could be called ignorance/delusion/illusion IMHO)

lol I only ask for a creditable look-alike.

Yes but you see, I don't believe in the practice of accepting axioms that do not give us definite results, such as useful distinctions which cannot otherwise be made. For example, I'm not a solipsist because, by accepting the existence of other minds, it is possible to make intersubjectively verified observations in scientific experiments. By tabulating this data and carefully applying time-tested methods of induction, it is possible to draw certain definite conclusions. These conclusions then culminate in results that are vindicated by pure subjective experience to an astonishing degree, such as by producing jet aircraft and modern medicine. This justifies my earlier axiom that other consciousness-bearing devices exist which perceive the world in ways similar to myself: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=106468&start=0#p2643996 (just this one post) Since assuming "nature" doesn't help us in a like manner AFAICT, assuming it as an axiom just for the sake of placing it at the root of our conceptual tree, then turning around and attempting to live by this "nature" that we've assumed without cause looks suspiciously like idealistic self-deception to me. I could be wrong, but it reminds me too much of the ontological argument. Start by defining ambiguous terms like: existence is "better" than non-existence. It logically follows that, since God is the singular monad which is the best of the best, he must therefore exist: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/the-ontological-argument/ I'm a hardened skeptic when it comes to vague axioms like this. It's possible to defend just about any worldview by accepting an ill-defined notion with no direct counterpart in that-which-really-exists as an axiom. Besides, why should I do this when I have viable alternatives? I visualize your tree as a decentralized web, with no node or branch being apotheosized into the unshakable root of all being, except the very idea of eliminating unnecessary axioms, which results in this web-like view.

wtf falun gong seems to be (loosely) based on buddhist beliefs, but in fact it's nothing like buddhism at all....

Er, no. Actually, I don't believe in the existence of "nature". That may not have been quite what I meant, but at least we agree on something.

There are also those who prefer the fog over clearheadedness, those who strive for a balance between the two, those who glorify fog as holy and condemn clarity as unreal, (by which they sometimes mean that they think they're unable to cope with reality as it is) those who reserve different mental states for different circumstances, (some tasks require total absorption) etc.

The sutras plainly use these ancient beliefs in poetry and metaphor. It's not an article of faith in Buddhism that, say, the ground floats on a layer of water, which in turn rests on a later of wind, etc. Buddhism doesn't concern itself with dictating empirical facts, but what can be deduced about the workings of the mind from observation alone without making prior assumptions. The former simply isn't the focus of Buddhism itself as a religion and an intellectual tradition. That stuff is up to practitioners to discover for themselves. Sometimes I don't know what's wrong with people. Are Buddhists aware that we're supposed to be striving for true omniscience, no matter what knowledge such a lofty goal may require, or are we just letting the maras lead us deeper and deeper into the pits of ignorance? PS. In fact, the Buddha explicitly says so in the Simsapa Sutta, that he's not a teacher of the sciences or anything else but the dhamma.

A causal chain, free from any sentient purpose led up to this result. No doubt some satisfaction-phenomena arose within her mind, leading her to believe she was making herself happy in some way, just as her desensitized consciousness slipped once more into the demon realm. Being born of ill motivation or unawareness, (schizophrenia?) this is a tragedy for both oppressor and victim, but it's also an opportunity to practice basic decency for the person who rescued the cat. These are, ultimately, the facts. It would be unskillful to feel indignant or self-righteous unless doing so improves matters in some way. OTOH, repressing such feelings would also be counterproductive. The middle path is spiritual practice.

There are no inconsistencies, really. I have tested each and every link once again over the last year. The structure may seem complex, wobbly and counter-intuitive, but logically, at least, it's airtight. All it takes to get a straightforward intellectual understanding is honest motivation and some effort in proportion to the distance from your cherished worldview. My advice would be: don't bother. As long as your intentions are pure, open and not derogatory by default, you will receive direct, personal experiences clarifying matters. IMHO, seriously believing this stuff for any other reason is indefensible.

A Seeker: I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. I mostly agree, except I don't place more inherent value on simplicity or complexity. I disagree that discovering correlations between a wealth of "complexity" renders the whole situation "simple". These simple explanations are often nothing more than pragmatic generalizations based on a pre-existing formal or informal scheme of analogy. It no doubt has pragmatic value, but it's best not to idealize logic and reasoning to an unjustifiable extent. V: Such a state would transcend simplicity and complexity. ...even so, I think it's almost always beneficial to remain aware of all perspectives, including underlying structures, when experiencing "simplicity", unless one is looking away as a spiritual exercise, etc. BTW, imagine if there had been a trial based on the event recorded in the selective attention video. Most eyewitnesses would've sworn that nothing unusual had taken place. This is one explanation as to why so many people are being exonerated from DNA evidence. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. Here, try it again: If you're interested, see: http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html Bonus video:

Marblehead: Thanks! I've already agreed with you. All views have pragmatic uses, none of which are ultimate, absolute or primary w.r.t others. I just happen to "like" complexity, if that makes any sense, but it doesn't mean I base my entire philosophy off of it as a first principle. Everything: Hush, you!