Vajrahridaya

Whoever is interested. It was Taoists that brought up the argument. I was just posting in the spirit of the thread, that is all, not arguing against anyone. Though, I would consider Taoism as Monism myself, as in "one-ism". So, I am in personal disagreement with it's main tenet. Even though, I do support many of it's practices and divination text the I-Ching which can be interpreted in a Buddhist way because of it's open ended-ness as using the term Tao to not mean an ineffable source, but rather just a label for the dynamics of nature, "the way" things move. I am also in full support of the more Buddhist interpretations of Taoism. I'm not a big fan of the Tao De Ching though, except that I do see some wisdom in it, but for the most part it's just a whole bunch of vagueness to me. I like Chuang Tzu better. Very much so in fact!! I find his teachings to be more realized.

"Six realms of existence are identified in Buddhism: gods, demigods, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, and hells. They are each the result of one of the six main negative emotions: pride, jealousy, desire, ignorance, greed, and anger. Looking at the world around us, and into our own minds, we can see that the six realms definitely do exist. They exist in the way we unconsciously allow our negative emotions to project and crystallize entire realms around us, and to define the style, form, flavor, and context of our life in those realms. And they exist also inwardly as the different seeds and tendencies of the various negative emotions within our psychophysical system, always ready to germinate and grow, depending on what influences them and how we choose to live." From Rigpa, Glimpse of the Day by Sogyal Rinpoche. Email List

LOL! Indeed, I was actually going to do that, to edit for the group, but... I decided to leave it just in case it is important to have the first bit for certain people.

I do understand that. But it is hard when that type of thinking is a given part of the original form of Buddhism as taught by Gotama the Buddha. He said such things all the time, that I am beyond these teachings and those teachings and these teachings are inferior and only lead to this or that level of awakening but not the full awakening that I have realized, etc. It's an integral part of Buddhist philosophy to think that way. But... I'll give it my darndest!! That's for sure!! I think there are great beings studying and practicing Taoism, not only just in the world but here as well, including yourself Stigweard.

My girlfriends favorite!! YAY!!! Looooove it!! Makes me all lovey dovey.

My initial intention in the Why Buddhism is Different thread was to just show how a Monist interpretation cannot be the same as a Buddhist realization of the nature of things. Buddhism has clearly different realizations and cannot be crammed into the, "all religions are the same" nutshell. It is unique in it's realization of the nature of existence. I wasn't actually trying to argue, just making a point but it became an argument and I thought it was a good one that allowed some critical points to be clarified. I think those that got offended and continue to get offended are taking themselves too seriously. But, I do commit to dialog. As long as revealing difference is not seen as revealing superiority.

Exactly, that was the point of the quote, is that all these realms exist right here, right now in different ways for different people. Big time CEO's are Gods and the VP's are Demigods and on down the line... you know? Hell beings are crack dealers and hungry ghosts are the robbers who try to fund their crack cravings. Anyway...

I had been trying, honestly. Then you came in and brought up the old argument, which was not my intention. I was just trying to show how the path is different. You know? I honestly think that if one would look honestly at themselves, they would come to enlightenment if one were to look past all emotional, intellectual and experiential excuses for ignorance. One would indeed become a Buddha, no matter the language.

Your humility truly engenders respect from me and only exemplifies what I've truly ever, honestly felt from you, is that you are a good Taoist practitioner. Not only that, but beyond any religion, a truly good questioner. I do feel that yes, due to Dependent Origination as the guide of Buddhadharma, that one can transcend ambiguous mysticism and come to logical and rational conclusions about everything. Of course, that is merely a reflection of the ability to contextualize direct experiencing through conceptual expression. As we know, the description of eating an apple is not the same as eating an apple, but... they are both required to understanding and de-mystifying, thus the union of Wisdom and Method as signified by the Yab Yum in Vajrayana. I fully respect your ability to renounce pride. My eyes water in reflection of your generosity, honestly. In humility, Hari.

When you see through the conditioning of the senses and see beyond being conditioned by your history, you will then see the now as it is, beyond the senses.

Yes, it really has to be experienced directly through meditation or meditative contemplation. This is where I get my insight from. Texts from liberated Buddhas just contextualize my direct experiences for me. You are entitled to your unknowing and ideas that we don't take rebirth. I would be lying to myself if I didn't believe in rebirth, as if I were in denial about the experience of things I did yesterday. I am experientially in disagreement with your conclusions.

Of course! From Theravada to Mahayana, to Vajrayana to Dzogchen... it's all covered in a very humongous Canon and their many, many helpful commentaries. Whew!! Exhaustive of everything about everything.

No, you are right! There are also stages to Buddhahood. The different systems within Buddhism argue about the stages. As with Buddhists arguments about the erroneous views outside of Buddhism? The argument is that they don't even enter the stages. Take care. p.s. Your right! I did prove you wrong, by agreeing with you. I just now realized that.

Monist Eternalism as displayed above is rejected by Buddhahood. Brahman is still considered in Advaita Vedanta to be the sum total of all things, and the Alpha of all beings. The one we spring from and return to at the end of the cosmic eon. It's the recycling agent, the attachment to a final identity of all. This is not congruent with Buddhist enlightenment.

The quoted sentence underneath it. The 3rd door.

Was a bastard, did drugs and ran with gangs. But my door was meditation for sure! Not drugs and gangs. That just revealed... except more than vaguely... Lead me to meditation, then Buddhism as a clear comprehension of meditative experience. As well as just every day living experience.

Maybe in the Buddhist influence, but it seems that it can be taken to the dark side quite as easily with the excuse that there is no real definable understanding of the path. Unlike Buddhism. Suit yourself... I guess you're lucky! Oh good!!

No it's not, because there is still ultimating of a supreme subject of all beings that is one with all beings in Vedanta. So, this conclusion of spiritual experience would be subverted by Madhyamaka because that would be defined as the extreme view of eternalism, according to madhyamaka.

Yes, it's all one Self, one being, one mind-stream. So, therefore it's all one will Dwai. The Alpha is playing with us into itself as the Omega to re-Alphaise us in the next universe. How fun... recycling me over and over again, to go from bliss to suffering, to bliss to suffering again and again... all for the sake of his grand play!! YAY!! Please with your teachings!! Get me off this wheel oh Buddha!! You made the odd statement that my girlfriend and neighbors were secretly plotting my end... or something to that effect. Not me!! But to Taoism, it seems that this non-conceptual, mysterious Tao has given birth to relativity. When emptiness in Buddhism is the resultant realization of constant relativity and is not a mysterious source of anything, it's actually a condition of all dependently originated things, including consciousness. Then why follow such an ambiguous path that has no real source scriptures? What are the source scriptures, is it all just pick and choose, no real teaching that holds true to every aspect of it's manifestations? Is Taoism just whatever one wants it to be? How ambiguous! Sheesh I'm using this word a lot. It's like my new reify... ugh!!

Are you schizophrenic? Thanks Carson... I actually feel a bit of your sincerity here. All the best to you as well! Which is what Tathagatagarbha kind of means. Though it's still not establishing an ultimate substance or essence of all things that is homogeneous and the single source of all things. It's just that Taoism is so ambiguous about what the Tao is, but plenty say, it's oneness, it's the source of existence, it gives birth to the 10,000 things. That would all be monist interpretations of the universe. No, gravity only exists relative to other causes and conditions and is not a self sustaining ultimate truth from it's own side. The Tao De Ching is. Then what's the source of the Tao? Is it dependently originated? It sure seems to mean to merge with an ineffable essence of all things. Actually not all interpretations of Vedanta personalize Brahman. There are some atheistic forms of interpretation, but they still don't see dependent origination. If it's merely talking about the endless chain of causation? Then what's all this Taoist talk of oneness and that which gave birth to everything, or that which gives constant birth, or is the subtle essence? I don't really see dependent origination as clearly in Taoism as I do in Buddhism, and I feel it's because that level of clarity does not exist in Taoism.

Not exactly, but quite similar. There is still a falling into the category of the interpretation of "oneness". Both Taoism and Hinduisms conclusions are rejected by the Shurangama Sutra. I don't mean to hurt any feelings in this statement. Just subvert erroneous views for those that are ready to hear as such.

Buddhism doesn't see a universal essence. Period, that should set your head at rest. Buddhism has a different realization. You think Taoism is superior, and I don't. So be it.

Again... just ambiguous mysteriousness. Rejected by Buddhism. Don't call it anything... don't call it the Tao... if your inner interpretation of the experience is that of the source of all 10,000 things, then it is rejected by Buddhism. Sounds like ultimating the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception. This is not akin to dependent origination and is akin to positive primal origination. Which are words pointing to an experience beyond words but still clinging to this as fact and not fiction. I don't care how mysterious you make it, these are ways that Advaitins use to describe the impersonal Brahman... the ineffable beyond words and descriptions, the one beyond all dualism. It's nothing new to me. It's still according to Buddhism, a misunderstanding of spiritual experience and does not lead to full blown liberation from Samsaric rebirth. You still ultimate it. It is still considered a homogeneous though transcendent as it may be, ground of being. We are using words to describe transcendent experience here. So forgive me. But, Buddhism still will not agree. No... your still considering it the inexplicable essence of all things. Just non-descriptively. Oh these ambiguous paths... Ultimating a meditative experience as the one truth beyond all relativity. They go up for the basket!! Rejected by the Buddha!! He, he... just playing around Stigweard. I'm just saying though. I understand what your saying and just using words to describe that your "indescribability" is an experiential excuse for ambiguity according to Buddhism. This is not dependent origination and thus is not the same as the Buddhadharma. Period.