zenbrook

You want dumb....? I'm your man As with all these things, I would suggest it depends upon your own personal point of view. The question is not whether Buddhism and Taoism mix, but whether you find something of value in each/either/or that is of benefit. There are many 'Buddhisms' and many 'Taoisms' depending on how one interprets them. As an example: I have been a practitioner of both in my time, a non-ritualistic and in many ways secular Zen-based Taoism and a highly ritualized and religiously oriented Tantric Buddhism.... yet for me the two are identical in that they offered me effective methods (albeit outwardly very different) to lessen confusion and promote wellbeing. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, just as I have my strengths and weaknesses as a practitioner. My personal preference (yes, I did just say that) is for Taoism. My Taoism and your's will as likely be different. Does it matter? Not a jot. Which is better? The best one of all is the one that you practice. And practice, as we know, makes perfect. Peace (& welcome!), ZenB

Thanks, Yen Hui... I'll look out for a copy. An ex-wife of mine once suggested that were I to be given a Native American name, it should be Sitting Down. Ah, how I miss her funny little ways Peace, ZenB

Then on that note I shall bow out (hopefully gracefully!) of the dharma battle My thanks to you for your patience and heartfelt responses. Peace, ZenB

Welcome, you six digit number, you! Don't worry about levels - get stuck in! I'm twice your age and haven't worked out how to get the lift doors open yet! Peace, ZenB

And, of course, from the tantric perspective, that's absolutely the case. According to Vajrayana, the process of falling asleep and entering the dream state exactly mirrors the process of dying. We first experience the dissolution of the elements, earth into water, water into fire etc., until space dissolves into itself and the clear light manifests. Then, instead of entering dream, we enter the turbulent visions of the bardo which we either recognize for what they are (the product of our minds natural luminosity) and are in that moment self-liberated, or don't, in which case we soon get to enjoy the sun once more. Or at least, thus have I heard 'This day is a special day, it is yours. Yesterday slipped away, it cannot be filled anymore with meaning. About tomorrow nothing is known. But this day, today, is yours, make use of it. Today you can make someone happy. Today you can help another. This day is a special day, it is yours.' (I don't know anything about this poem other than it's supposedly Indian, but it's lovely, and came to mind when I read your post Treena) Peace, ZenB

I can't answer this from a taoist perspective - indeed, I would be fascinated to hear more about a taoist approach - but the (Buddhist) tantric practice of dream yoga suggests that our dreaming is a 'reversal' of our waking state. For instance, initially at least, engaging in meditation in the dream state is a poor idea as the usual movement from form towards emptiness emphasized in most waking state meditations results in loss of consciousness (lucidity) when practiced in the dream state. Thus the initial tantric emphasis with regard to practice in the dream state concerns multiplicity - moving from emptiness towards form - so that awareness is maintained. Only later, when one has substantial experience of lucidity and presence in the dream state would one move on to meditations that we would normally practice during the day. Does that make any sense at all? I guess you could say on the above analysis that there is a 'balance' between waking and dreaming processes. And it follows that something would have to be done differently to mess with our holistic path (however karma's still an issue whether dreaming or awake). As to whether dreams are either interesting or impactful - I think that depends purely on how you regard them and what you do with them. Too tired, off to bed: to sleep, perchance to dream. Sorry if the above is bollocks. Peace & goodnight, ZenB

Wow - three of my best theories shot down in flames! If I may, however....... far be it for me to second-guess the Buddha's methodology at the moment of awakening, but if desire is in its essence empty - as you would say being 'nothing to liberate' - why then is renunciation, cutting off, being promoted as the only way to deal with it? Why not simple allow it to self-liberate into the natural energy of the awakened state? Oh, and by 'giving' I merely meant with regard to a little love and human tenderness. And not so much as a conscious act, either....... more as a naturally manifesting and earthier version of the brahma viharas. (Don't want Mrs B to think compassionate motivation is all that draws me to her erotic charms. She'd probably take that quite badly. And I'd miss my testicles.) Peace, and thank you, ZenB

Whether or not Yen finds it so... Well said, freeform! Spot on! Peace, ZenB

What about liberating desire, 林愛偉? Would you consider that a possibility? What if Shakyamuni, rather than renouncing the sensual visions before him, had used his penetrating insight in that moment to realise the empty nature of desire? Could he not have attained enlightenment also by this means? Can sexuality not be an expression of the enlightened impulse? An act of giving, for example? And what of the desire for liberation? Should one cut off one's motivation for spiritual practice also? Peace, ZenB

Crikey, surely this is a little presumptuous? You say that one who has awoken to 'awareness of no-self' would not indulge in sexual desire. Why would that be? Why would awareness of no-self limit one's responses to others or one's environment in this, or any other, way? Surely the opposite would be true - dissolution of separation between oneself and others would facilitate the fulfillment of sexual desire in its truest sense? Perhaps it's a mistake to view sexual abstinence in this context as anything other than a path. Even the Buddha was only halfway there Peace, ZenB

Welcome Durkhrod Get stuck in..........

Interesting. I only asked, because it seems to me that we're all here for very different reasons, trying to achieve (or not-achieve) very different things . Consequently, our 'taoisms' will very probably be very different too. Is it necessarily the case that Taomeow's tao and your's will be the same? Your's and mine? Should they be? To return to the source, as it were: Raisinets may be scrumptious, but they stick in my teeth - I prefer onions. However that may be, I choose to celebrate our differences, rather than waste my time clinging at all costs to our similarities. The exchange between the two of you was fascinating and I thank you both... but I'm still not sure that 'it' would have the same meaning for both of you. And I'm rather glad it doesn't have to Peace, ZenB

Could you expand on this? What would it mean to be a 'real person'? And for you, Taomeow? Why do you follow the paths you do? Peace, ZenB

I'm not terribly sure how useful my post will be to you as I have no idea what the 'big draw' is and have only a vague notion who Mantak Chia is. I've practiced non-ejaculatory sex for many years now and found it extremely gratifying. One emission every month or so seems to keep things running smoothly and a loving partner, patience and good humour all go a long way to making ejaculation control a reality. BUT... most important of all: you have to enjoy it!! With or without ejaculation, sex should be fun! Ejaculation control works for me, but everybody's different. Don't make sexuality a chore and remember that anything taken to an extreme can be equally harmful. 'If what I claim seems incredible, Try feeding this [aphrodisiac] to the oldest tomcat. Within three days he will rut without pause, Within four days he'll chase after dogs and rabbits too. His fur will turn from white to black And finally he'll keel over dead From neglecting to empty his bowels. So remember the fate of this cat, And don't neglect to empty your bowels.' Hou Hui: The Golden Lotus (And don't worry too much about emptying testicles ) Peace, ZenB

I think I share with you a common ancestry with regard to appreciation for the tao, turtle:) I must admit I'm loath to use the old 'philosophical' vs 'religious' model, but like you, can't help feeling there's a kernel of something essentially 'taoist' that precedes or informs later ritual/magickal/alchemical developments. Perhaps it's just I'm old-fashioned, not in the sense of ancient, but rather in terms of more recent history. I'm amazed at the stuff the good people on this forum are up to... half the time talking about practices and experiences I've never even heard of (the aneros?!!) In my day, it was a copy of the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tsu and maybe some Tai Chi Chuan at the local church hall if you were lucky! Ah, I miss the innocence of those days... not having a clue what the Inner Chapters were on about. Now that I am older and much, much cleverer, I understand them even less than when I started Father Paul would say that I am not asking the right questions. I think I would have to agree. But I digress. I just wanted to say how happy I am to have found somewhere where I can chat with (forgive my presumption) like-minded folk such as yourself, turtle, but also where I can participate in (albeit at one remove) the breadth, depth and raw enthusiasm of a community with a far broader definition of taoism than I was able to experience when I first started out. And for that, I would like to thank you all. Peace, ZenB

Could be that 'what are the right questions?' is the most important question to ask. Certainly the most honest Peace, ZenB

It's a little scary joining in here as a newby, not too sure whether I'm even going to end up replying to the right bit, but........ Just wanted to sat that I'm in agreement with the turtle here in as much as supernormal accomplishments are not necessarily to everyone's taste in terms of our individual paths - this does not mean that they are either codswallop or unnecessary. I began my own journey many years ago with Taoism, strongly flavoured by a Zen ethos that saw supernatural powers as 'pointless' as in 'My master can also perform amazing feats - when he's tired, he sleeps. When hungry, he eats.' From there I studied with the Tibetan tantric tradition where siddhis - powers - were seen as crucial pointers along one's path. But for me, personally, my heart always remained more at home with the Zen approach. Still I trained for thirteen years as a tantrika. I guess what I'm trying to say (very badly!) is that I think it comes down to personal temperament and one's path. Both approaches are valid, whatever motivates you to do the do. Incidentally, the Tibetans have lung-ta running about which I'm sure there's all manner of information readily available now. Peace, ZenB

If I may be so bold, or perhaps foolish, as to put in my two-penneth... could it be that the question in some way begs itself? Is it that cosmic intelligence, knowingness, is something that's already here, with us, in fact so much here that we more often than not fail to see it at all? Our understanding of it, should we ever be so fortunate, less an acquisition, perhaps, and more a gentle yet penetrating acknowledgment. Whereas intellectual knowledge - knowledge of... is something we do create and therefore acquire? For many of us the latter precedes the former (and is in fact a prerequisite for knowing in its deepest sense), but this surely does not have to be the case. 'In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired. In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.' Perhaps we are talking about two different things - modes of knowledge each with it's own remit but ultimately both returning to the same source? The question then being not whether one by necessity precedes the other, but rather at what level, if at all, the two interrelate? Is it possible to 'know' the Tao so well intellectually that true knowledge is missed? I think so, yes: the 'great pretense' as Lao Tsu would have it. So perhaps a little more waiting and a little less learning? I just don't know. But I can't wait to find out. Peace, ZenB