nac

You did, however, write a very silly article about Einstein's spirituality.

I can't remember seeing you do anything like that, not even when you used to spam every thread. I remember you saying that Taoism handles the Eastern metaphysical question in a particularly elegant way, by apotheosizing the quality of DO-ness and change as the absolute Tao. Well, if this isn't just stigma from back then, then perhaps people have abandoned their rational minds in favor of aesthetics. It "feels right" that you're out to convert people because Taoism is a more fun religion than Buddhism, so why would anyone choose Buddhism over Taoism? I suck at conspiracy theories.

By the way, does anyone know why people think Buddhism wants to form a monopoly? Buddhism didn't try and wipe out all other religions in any of the countries where it established itself. Despite Tibet's evil reputation, there were nevertheless four mosques within the city of Lhasa during the age of ghettos and pogroms in Europe, catering to hundreds of Muslim residents. Do you think some Buddhists influenced by evangelical Christianity or something really do try to convert anyone and everyone in sight? I have never seen Buddhists giving out fliers in the streets. In fact, I've heard Jews say that they vehemently oppose messianic Judaism, but don't mind Jewish Buddhists because while Christians actively evangelize near synagogues and spend thousands of dollars trying to convert Jews, people become Jewbus of their own accord.

I mean, you're engaging in intellectually honest debate, right? You're not merely pushing doctrine from Buddhist texts or repeating yourself ad nauseam?

TheSongsofDistantEarth has a point. Some of these people have decided not to listen to us no matter what we say. Do you think it would be skillful to drop each discussion after a few posts? Or maybe we could compile a huge Buddhism FAQ, and simply direct each recurring misconception to the relevant entry. PS. I mean, even discussions lightly touching upon the subject of Buddhism have become emotionally charged to the point of utter irrationality. We should be looking at long-term solutions.

V: Are you really trying to convert everyone to Buddhism? BTW, is that Taoist text which claims that Laotzu left for India and took birth as Sakyamuni Buddha, but Indians misunderstood his teaching and ended up creating Buddhism included in the Daozang? Instruction of the Barbarians or something, can't remember what it was called. PS. I think it's called Conversion of the Barbarians.

All this discussion goes to show is that subjective realization is relative, not absolute.

I assumed goof faith in you, you didn't for me. Enjoy your victory. Evidently, it was too much to hope that you would read my posts with an open, yet critical mind of objective neutrality. PS. I come to this forum to talk about philosophical Taoism, but I always get dragged into these painful and endless discussions about Buddhism. PPS. Moreover, I wanted to learn from you too. Instead, all you did was criticize me without offering any new perspectives, thus teaching me a very base and disappointing lesson about confirmation bias.

You are mistaken because you never raised any rational objections to what I said. That's what it means to be human IMHO. Learning from each other. If you didn't, then I did waste your time, sorry. Why did you bother talking to me then? What is it that the the Wikipedians say? Assume good faith. No, it's obviously the difference between idle gossip and having a meaningful discussion. If you don't plan to change your beliefs no matter what I say, there's no use prolonging this pointless interlude in your life.

So one profanity in two pages of typing and your time has been completely wasted. (I just wanted to make sure you didn't ignore that line ) There was no way I could have shown you your mistake. I hope your Taoist masters teach you what I couldn't. Have fun on your chosen path!

Then you haven't seen many Buddhists, because I and many other Buddhist practitioners identify with Taoism to an extent. This is especially prevalent among Zen practitioners, even in E-Sangha. The E-Sangha Zen community ran away to this forum: http://www.zenforuminternational.org/ No see, this is a mistake. Some novice Taoists think that because the Tao is universal, Buddhism is an incomplete subschool of Taoism with a misunderstanding about the Tao. Other religions should be respected not only for their similarities, but also for their differences. This is the attitude adopted by most Buddhists and Taoists I've met in real life. I'm sure you've seen the monks (and rinpoche) on E-Sangha do the same. That's because this universality is illusory. Buddhists and Taoists aim for different goals, both of which are worthy. There is no universal, all-encompassing spirituality of which different schools represent unique fragments. That's the Buddhist position at any rate, and one that I subscribe to.

Did you read the rest of my post? And even if this point was valid, I suppose you'd go about admonishing both sides by never telling either side anything because both are equally guilty? What are you talking about? The point is, the goal of Buddhists really is different from the goal of Taoists, and novice Taoists should try to avoid the common obstacle of denying this truth and simply stating that Buddhists don't understand the true nature of Tao. That's all. This is only applicable to E-Sangha and affiliated forums. Some of these online Buddhists had an aversion to other religions I've never seen elsewhere. This was spread by a few key people like Namdrol, who was a Sakya fanatic. The funny thing is, Sakya Trizin Rinpoche has clearly stated that the only major practical difference between Buddhism and Taoism is the Buddha's emphasis on compassion.

Sorry, I was hoping the profanity would catch your attention and convey the force of my feelings on the subject. How is converting someone to Buddhism saving them from suffering? That's recruiting more workers to save other beings from suffering. Trust me, too many analogies is a bad idea. Western pop psychology is too strong a meme for my arguments to penetrate. If you think V is simply being frank and I'm spouting bullshit hoping to draw converts to Buddhism, then there's nothing I can say or do that will make you think otherwise, except agreeing with V, which is of course out of the question. So let's drop this here.

That's because he's being a pious Buddhist. In what way? Oh no, it's an ancient Taoist tradition to make fun of Buddhists and simply state they don't understand the Tao. However, his is not a weakness of the Taoism per se. How many Buddhist texts depreciate the Tao and how many venerable patriarchs are noted for their opposition to Taoism? Buddhists aren't exactly noted for going out of their way to mock Taoism. In fact, many Buddhists who belong to East Asian traditions are also Taoists like myself. Not really, Indian religions bear more resemblance Greek philosophical traditions than Abrahamic religions or East Asian philosophical traditions. This need exists in your imagination and, I'm sorry to say, the heads of many other western Buddhists. Asian Buddhists are passive missionaries at most. Why did Greek philosophical schools contend with and debate each other? Because they had honestly held beliefs which they believed can be transmitted using logic and argumentation. Indian philosophical traditions are the same. I've never seen Buddhists simply stating that Taoists don't understand the universal Buddha-nature. The stance isn't the same. I'm simply advising Taoists to overcome this common failing among Taoist communities. I'd advise Buddhists to do the same.

This is even incorrect according to Buddhist doctrine. The Buddha himself said that Buddhism isn't for everyone. The Buddhist view does, however, purify every sentient being in the six realms. Please note that is a fucking lie. What is, imposing our views? I don't really understand conspiracies.

Neither does the Tao or Brahma or Jesus. Not to Buddhists though. These are all pious legends. Buddhism is all about studying the failings practitioners develop at various stages of spiritual cultivation. In that sense, I suppose failings are less a part of traditions than spiritual communities and individual practitioners. A practitioner with less failings will reform and improve whatever tradition he belongs to.

Where did I say that? Buddhist traditions have their differences too. They can't all be right.

Is speaking one's mind equivalent to lunatic raving in this community unless one accepts the official consensus?

He's right in this case. I don't understand this urge to delude oneself into believing that all traditions lead to exactly the same goal. Where did the Dalai Lama say that Buddhist enlightenment is the same as in every other tradition? Because if he did say it, I hereby officially cease to believe anything the Dalai Lama tells me. Being this much of a statesman is downright unskillful IMO.

Enthusiasm originally meant to be possessed by a god. The -thus- part is actually derived from theos, Greek for god. You know who the Bacchantes were, right? The cult of Bacchus used to hold rituals where they tore apart a live goat with their bare hands and consumed its raw flesh. (note the parallels with the Eucharist in Catholic ceremony) This state of intoxication was called "enthusiasm" because they believed the worshipers were being possessed by Bacchus himself.

Meh, all traditions have their failings. From time immemorial, the Taoist stumbling block seems to be high-fiving each other over how Buddhists have an incomplete understanding of the Tao. Come on guys, don't let such a lame attachment hold you back!

Eh? Why would the non-existence of an absolute Self entail the lack of free will? It simply doesn't follow. I think some of you are placing too much trust on untrained intuition.

Some highly Sinicized fringe groups in China even teach that sick people shouldn't be treated without proper healing rituals because the negative karma would only manifest in a different form unless purified with spiritual power. Such groups are considered heterodox by mainstream Buddhism. I checked. The best answer I got was something like: ripening karma doesn't stop ripening because of medical treatment.

Most Buddhists believe in free will, generally speaking. I'm glad Taoists believe in it too because I was under the impression that they were mostly strict determinists. Destiny is incompatible with free will, you know. If everything was predetermined as an undifferentiated whole, then where's the role of free will? I think the Huayan school, and consequently some branches of Zen, are an exception in that they subscribe to the popular Chinese cultural belief in fate. I'm curious as to how they resolve this preconception with the Buddhist worldview. Even without going into details, the Buddha explicitly calls determinism a pernicious view in the Tipitaka.

Don't forget the three jewels. It's because of this attitude that I never consider myself a full-fledged Taoist. PS. OTOH, I'm not in favor of strict, over-generalized morality either, like: never kill, no exceptions. There's little meaning and no depth in such systems.