Vajrahridaya

Hmn... interesting. I remember at times when I was a youngster that I really wanted to follow the Taoist tradition and not be so in a position where I was only influenced by the Hindu tradition. Not only because of the martial arts programs, but because of the philosophy seemed so much more practical in a sense. Sometimes, Taoism seems to be quite in line with what the Buddha said in the Atheistic sense. The Cosmos just moves in and out of states of repressed potential into expressed potential, over and over again due to mutual co-origination of all phenomena and not due to a prime mover or one that wills everything to be out of it's own being and desire. Mono-theism of any sort just doesn't seem to hit the nail on the head accurately enough. So, both Taoism and Buddhism stand apart from other traditions in this sense for me and don't make nearly as many emotional excuses for existence.

I think this is your Buddhist influenced mind talking though. It still seems as far as the Tao is talked about in various classical texts, that the Tao is an ontological essence of things, the oneness behind the maniness. The true and unchanging nature of all change. The transcendent non-thing that all things are in absolute and certain truth. This is not the insight of dependent origination. Then again... because at times the term Tao is contextualized differently, during these times I can see certain individual Taoists could possibly come to the same insight as a Buddha. When the Tao is merely a term that is used to describe the way things mutually flow interdependently since beginningless time. But when the Tao is said to be that which exists before time, before manifestation as a true and definite transcendent view, then there is the mistake of taking a meditative experience as an essential nature of everything. This again would not lead to genuine liberation, only altered states of bliss that may be prolonged through focus and integration. A worthy goal, but not the same as full awakening to the nature of things.

So then the Tao is a transcendent Self of all? An all encompassing essential nature that is always? The unchanging principle behind change?

It's not about being impervious, it's about inner transformation. When we transform our own negativity into positive energy and virtue through awareness, then even though we are aware of anthers negativity, they are transformed within our field of influence naturally. Like osmosis from lower vibration to higher vibration. It's not about denial, but merely the power of awareness. I've met spiritual masters who are able to do this. I've seen people who are negative and mean outside of the presence of these teachers, but when they are in the presence of these teachers, only their positive traits come out during that time due to the influence of the energy. I myself have experienced this within me. In the presence of an enlightened teacher, all of a sudden I'm enlightened for those few days that I am with that person like osmosis. The job is to take the practices and contemplations I've learned from this teacher and make that state of mind truly my own all the time. Be the light of my own presence and thus have the same effect on others as these great teachers.

Ok... very good. I just need some more defining context, that's all. No need to get your hair twisted. Just kidding Marblehead, you know I love ya! So basically, is Tao a phenomena, or just a word like cosmos is merely a word to say everything? Or is Tao a transcendent something that all things come from and return to?

3bobs' and Michaelz comments are good enough. In general though, we see what we want. If we are embittered, then this view will taint our interpretation of things. We will see only that which supports our inner state of bitterness. So, it's not that there aren't those teachers that abuse such power and hierarchy, but at the same time, there are plenty that do not. I don't look at those that abuse this power and position of being a qualified teacher, so I am not embittered by those that do.

The reasons are the possibility of abuse and misuse, much like Dzogchen does these days where people read some books and completely misunderstand because they haven't had any training in how to interpret properly. Also the practices should not be done unless a person is ready, otherwise they can lead to damage instead of help. It just happens that different masters have their own traditions within the same path. It's just the way of things because there's lots of different people and everyone doesn't live together. Different people are influenced by many different variables and need different things at different times, or the same things at different times from different presentations. But all Buddhist traditions, generally speaking have the same flavor or the same marks that make Buddhadharma different from other religions. Because of abuse. I don't know if you'll get this reason, but think about how most people are. Most people aren't ready for certain things and need to be blinded from some things in order to even make progress, then when they are ready to see what's behind door number 2 or 7, the Master shows up and it's revealed as if it was never hidden. When I say I don't know if you'll get this reason, is because I've had this discussion many times before and most people who see something in their way, don't change their minds. People want what they want and they don't care if it's not healthy for them as of yet.

Your attached to trying to prove me wrong. Hi ralis!

Well... there are your reply's to me.

Right... just be your joyous self, relative to the realization you have uncovered through your own relative being. Why succumb to the negative pressures of others that arises dependent upon their own ignorance?

The Buddha as well argued against erroneous views for the sake of clarity for his own disciples even if the people he argued with did not go away with understanding, the onlookers open to the outcome of the arguments did. But yes... there is no ultimate view, and that's Buddhisms ultimate view unlike other paths which take up a view as an ontological essence of all mind and matter.

The insight of inter-dependent origination does neither and merely see's relativity and all sides of it's emptiness of inherent self-ness. There is both something here and nothing here, and as well not both, and both simultaneously. But, there is not an inherent transcendent nature of things that is beyond all conditions which self exists that all things are, unless you want to think there is, then that experience will arise dependent upon that view. But, truly speaking, it's not an inherent self, merely dependent origination at work through you.

This seems somewhat ambiguous. What exactly does tzujan mean then? Is it a static essence, that things have a self in and of themselves? Do things do because they are real and true in and of themselves and do things have a soul, or essential nature that wills action as the self of these things? As in... do individual phenomena arise due to their own self nature without prier cause because they are one with the Tao... the will power of the all? Are things just as they are because they are firmly that self which has a definite nature in and of itself?

Good! Thank you. So it seems to be through Laozi's utterances. Yes, Yin/Yang can be perfectly utilized within Buddhist context. Right... self origination. That the Tao is the original will of the movement of cosmos and all that makes this up. That this willing into expression comes from a single origin would not be in cahoots with Buddha's insights. Now... of course, this is not saying that the Buddha is right and Laozi is wrong. Just that the Buddha is saying something different. The Buddha taught a different interpretation as to the doing of cosmos and to what the insight into it's doing is which liberates one completely from the future possibility of suffering experiences. My own experiential insight happens to follow along the lines of what the Buddha taught and not what Laozi says in the TTC.

I use mantra repetition influenced by the memory of it's positive experience. When the inscriptions of it's positive experience are in your body, you can just re-vitalize that through the reverberation of the mantra that the experience occurred through as mantra is really just honing and focusing mental power.

In the highest form of Buddha (awake) interpretation of cosmos, you are reborn endlessly, but with consciousness of this, as in you are awake of your intentions to do so. Just as the Buddha is and was. To see the empty nature of rebirth is to transcend this, even while doing this. Much like the Dalai Lama.

I know exactly what you are talking about! I mostly have been raised in the middle of major Urbanization myself, born in San Francisco and then a long stint in NM's various cities, into NYC since 1990 and now on the East coast of FL. When you become more detached and more cultivated of inner virtue, love, detachment, and free joy... you will heal others and others will feel happier around you because you will be aware of their lack of what you got. If you are strong in your own cultivated energy, you will naturally give it. If you don't give in to their level of osmosis and rather help them become benefactors of your own. Your sensitivity to outer phenomena beyond your own ego is definitely a sign of cultivation, but the next is when you much like coffee changing the flavor of water, you change the flavor of your energetic contacts.

You're definitely smart when it comes to this sort of paradigm. I read your posts here with attention and see the virtue in your views. EDIT: by the way, I think many posts here in this thread even in contention with the views of each other have relevance to relative+ truths.

Actually you do state many dogmas, but of this you are not aware.

It would behoove you to find out if you were so inclined to be cognizant of your own lack of essence. This sounds paradoxical, doesn't it?

There is no reality to be founded, only relations of relativity without ontological essence.

He mentioned Buddhism, which I knew he was going to do as I saw him enter the thread of Buddhist "harping" long before I came back and saw this. I knew he was going to comment and he did with wisdom and detachment, coming from his own state of deep posturing. I deeply respect this person as a Taoist. Though, I do feel that our views of what exactly is the goal of spirituality do differ. My view is definitely in alignment with the Buddha as well as the Dalai Lama and even ChNNR who you consider yourself a student of.. kind of. But, I know you are not really. You just had some experiences with him, but you really don't understand directly the meaning of your contemplation of Togal. I have every right to be here and debate from a detached point of view. I do not mean to hurt peoples feelings though attachment to a view will lead to your own hurt.

Though, because the term Tao merely means, "The Way". I've seen Zen masters use the term "Tao" to be synonymous with the sanskrit "Dharma." This basically means that all phenomena, including transcendent experiences which are considered phenomena in Buddhism, flow inter-dependently and endlessly without any point of origin since beginningless time, without ontological essence. Though... even this is empty of inherent essence. Thus... Dharma means endless inter-dependent origination and thus Dharma is also empty of inherent existence. So... this is what the Heart sutra is getting at. Prajnaparamita is very important in any Mahayana presentation as it clears itself of any ontological posturing or Selfhood, essential nature which the TTC definitely insinuates in defining the Tao as beyond concepts, but still as ultimate Truth in and of itself as all selves. The only way to talk about such things is through paradox really, but Buddha's insight of dependent origination really transcends paradox and linearity. One has to have an insight directly into what the Buddha was talking about which really takes studying what he talked about directly, letting go of one's assumptive views based upon ontological existentialism. EDIT: A little side note. In Monist traditions, transcendent experience is considered non-dual and beyond phenomena, but Buddha-ism considers this also a phenomena to be emptied of inherent existence and seen as dependently originated.

I used to agree with this and think of this dogma as a fundamental insight. There is deeper though.

There is no all absorbing Self in Buddhist cosmology of any sort.