Apech

Since when did we have a problem with swearing? Unless someone is swearing at someone else - then it should be ignored - even if they are swearing at someone else it should be ignored unless it gets out of hand. The real problem is disrespect, malicious attacks, trolling and so on. Mods stay calm - we don't want thought police.

sex with transvestite entities ... now we're getting somewhere

Did he have flashing eyes and floating hair? Crying might be a good thing ... in some way.

Your melon has ripened Don't know why but I keep thinking of: "A savage place! as holy and enchanted As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted By woman wailing for her demon-lover!" But of course he was not a demon and you are not wailing - so guess its irrelevant really.

So the entity was linked to a man ... but it was a separate entity, yes? That's interesting that when you understood what was happening it shut down - have I got that right?

when they're face to face Taoist and Buddhist agree there is no dispute. (just to raise the tone a little)

they're bumpin' uglies it could be a disaster when they're face to face.

.. .

This thread holds a fascination which surpasses the Buddhist philosophy debate I have to say. Yoda, You seem to have read every book on every subject under the sun. I remain a Yodisattva.

A maiden blossoms. Mounts an old man. Virgin on the ridiculous.

This may be a re-post but lots of versions of TTC here - in many languages: Tao te Ching resource includes the Jane English version Jane English A.

(Nice Stig) Whilst others get wet Buddhists have an umbrella Taoists beyond care. (see any thread by vajraji )

There you go again, who said they believed in that?

Ninpo, We are sticking to Haiku form which is 5,7,5 syllables - your middle line is 8 and your last is 6. But we don't really care that much, so lets carry on ... Neither Paul nor Father We know each other by names It's not who we are.

Does Vajrasattva claim to be a Buddha??????

Yes, I am sure that it would be rejected by Buddhists - that's what makes you and them Buddhists I suppose. However I do think it is a good trick to define the other peron's view for them and then knock it down. This brings to mind the way in which some of the Ancient Greeks criticized the Ancient Egyptian religion as being about worshiping animals and so on - this was really a preference not to understand that the other way is complete and different. Not if it is real. Define what you mean by real.

I think I should restate my point another way. I realize that the Tao is sometimes, and I think perhaps loosely, called the source of things but actually this is just a way of talking: It is not a top down construct supported by a hierarchy of levels or powers (although descriptively this might seem to be so if you take things to be a serial progression). The point is that reification is about treating an abstract (conceptual or non) as real. While we have not defined the word 'real', I would say it would be better to say that the Tao is real and therefore cannot be reified.

Having thought about it for a bit I would add that since the Tao is not an abstract reification as defined is not possible. So I can't agree with vajraji - but I would fight to the death to defend his right to say it - to mis-quote someone (possibly Voltaire). I have learned a lot from thinking about these issues.

Hello, I have been away and come back again - to find the discussion not much advanced. I have a question though, which I hope Taoist scholars can clarify. There is much talk here of the Tao as the 'mother of things', or so I understand and this is one reason why Vajraji accuses (I think that is the right word) Taoist of reification. However when I look up the first chapter of the TTC I find it does not say this at all. This is the Chen translation: "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. The Name that can be spoken is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth. The Named is the mother of all creatures. Observe the mysteries of the Tao without longing. Survey its appearance with desire. Both mysteries and appearance come from the same origin but wear a different name; they are enigmatic. The greatest mystery is the gate to all mysteries." It is saying (famously in fact) that the Tao cannot be named (or spoken) ... it is ineffable. We can talk about it - but we cannot say what it is because it is beyond definition. Heaven and earth arise from it but the 'mother of all creatures' is "the Named". As soon as we begin to identify, name and define then we perceive the 'creatures' i.e. the things. So what it is saying, I think, is that Heaven and Earth arise by virtue of the Tao and that the 'way' can be seen reflected in the laws that govern them ... but what it does not say that the Tao is the mother of anything ... I realise there are lots of translation and nuance of the words may be missing so if there is a Chinese speaking scholar out there please let me know. The reason I raise this is because this is not reification because the Tao is un-named as such and cannot be made into a 'thing' or a roof top concept (whatever) because it is indefinable through words and therefore concepts.

Great.

energetic Bond he has a license to kill when shaken not stirred. (great bridge artform )

Agreed. I think you should give up if even your shorts don't support you!

I think maybe that there is a huge difference between Buddhist philosophical debate and the actual practice of Buddhism. I am not saying they are contradictory but that the first is about developing a 'view' in order to help you practice and the other is actual practice, gaining merit and realizing the true nature of mind (or however you want to put it). Realizing voidity is very different to expressing an intellectual position around voidity. This occurs to me when reading this thread. I agree with whoever said that using Buddhism to deconstruct Taoism is a pointless task (or words to that effect). The most interesting thing to me is how uncomfortable people seem to be with people holding strong and different views to them. This seems neither Buddhist or Taoist. Buddhist are not supposed to criticize other teachings and Taoists do not work through oppositional forces ... but going with the flow (to use a crap and over used phrase). So what's the problem? Marble, My guess is you are wearing MC Hammer style trousers (orange) and a medieval tabard with heraldic lions on it. Am I close?

Sorry but the bits in bold are incomprehensible to me. What do you mean by Cosmos?

I agree Guenther is worth reading by the way - just that he is not a good example of clarity - not for me anyway. Why do all of these types of threads break down into some kind of argument? Vajraji is just saying what he believes and you don't have to agree. I think he has forgotten about Zhen-tong when he talks about reification, a point I made above... or was that another thread. Anyway Zhen-tong explains the positive qualities of the mind (generosity etc.) as originating in Buddha-nature - which is viewed as an existent. If you practice tantra the yidam is an aspect of Buddha-nature and so you are automatically Zhen-tong and not Ran-tong - which is the pure emptiness doctrine. The point about other religions/school of thought is that they start in a different place to Buddhism. They start with what is seen as ultimately real ... which in a theology is, of course, God (or the Tao for taoism). This is not some kind of mistake - it is a different way of looking at things. As the ultimately real is ineffable - it cannot be expressed directly in words or concepts - then who is to say calling it God or Tao is wrong. And if you say there is nothing ultimately real then where does compassion come from? If it is just part of samsara then compassion is illusory and that is a bit difficult for mahayana. I think its important to remember that Buddha did not say that there were no gods but that they are not suitable objects for refuge. In these terms even if you achieve the bliss of union with Indra or Brahma because the attachment of pride still exists you will eventually (possibly after eons) fall from grace into the hell realms. Its rather like stopping off at the pub on the way to church. Enjoyable but in the end leaving you with a bad headache.