Vajrahridaya

Yes, but that's just not accepted in traditional Buddhism. It's accepted in traditional Advaita, but there's no support in the scriptures of Buddhism for such theory. In Buddhism, one could say that they attempt to point at the same moon, but not all of them make it there directly. Your welcome to your opinion, but it's just not a Buddhist opinion. To a Buddhist, the dogma lies in thinking that they do end in the same place. That's a sort of dogma from a Buddhist perspective.

Wow, that's fantabulous!! I can't wait to play some holographic video games!! Woo, hooo!!

I was wondering because I read in other books that there was reference to earlier dates for Taoism than I just recently read online. Yes, I knoew that MA existed before the Bodhidharma influence. Just was saying that the Shaolin style (very popular) was influenced by Indian styles. See, I've read before that the I-Ching might have been conjured around the 6 to 4,000 B.C. then I read that it's more like 400 B.C. Which is why it's hard to tell with such B.C. documents when reading anthropology because they all disagree with each other. All I know is that I've been using the I-Ching my entire life and it's worked the entire time perfectly in uncanny ways with divination. I don't doubt that at all. Just as Vajrayana was influenced by Bon (which coincidently? had a cosmology already similar to Buddhisms) when it arrived in Tibet. I don't know where that would come from unless of course Lao Tzu did some inter-dimensional traveling or knew how to quantum leap like Star Treks' beam me up Scotty? Which I believe is totally possible with a certain type of cultivation. But, I did hear that one time somewhere some time ago from someone? No, seriously, I do remember hearing something like that, I just can't remember the exact source and how that would be possible? Someone said that Lao Tzu could have been a Pratyekabuddha? Which are those that know, but don't say much about it.

These are some discussions that happened surrounding this same question in another board... http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...91866&st=40 Posts #44 to #48.

Yes, that's the Dzogchen position, that it can happen instantaneously, but generally that instantaneousness happens over an illusion of time as the realization of emptiness is integrated from one's personal universe as an Arhat into all universes of expression as infinite beings. A Bodhisattva turns that oil into an endless supply through offering merits, and flipping the beginningless Samsaric connections of his or her being from selfish to selfless, thus realizing an endless supply of ability or energy of offering as a Buddha. It's kind of as simple as turning the mirror from inside to outside... as a metaphor.

Don't know bout that, they've influenced more people into enlightenment than any other spiritual tradition, across so many different countries and continents. Plus, we don't worship them, we integrate their wisdom with our own mind stream by realizing the same potentiality that they've realized. Even if one were to have great guidance, one would walk the path alone, in as much as no one can make us actually drink the water out of the cup offered us or walk the map given. Plus everyone will experience the walk in a unique way, even if we pass the same place marks. Spirituality is still intimately unique from person to person, no matter what.

Well, for a Buddhist specific intentions during the progress are important and that manifests the fruit.

Oh ok... An Arhat goes for solitary enlightenment, while a Buddha is a being who attained enlightenment through the Bodhisattva path for the sake of all beings, so gathered more powers of expression and compassion through his or her path to salvation during his or her carrier as a Bodhisattva. You can Wiki Bodhisattva if you wish.

That question was answered in earlier posts. Re-read Kate, you'll get your answer. Don't just skim either because it seems like you did the first time if you didn't catch your answers. Both Michael and Xabir as well as I left these answers already for you.

Ah, the whole alchemical thing, yeah we have that too with Vajrayana. It's hard to really source things as old as that sometimes. You have a lot of false assumptions surrounding Buddhadharma though. I've read Opening the Dragons Gate which talks about some of those things your talking about. Also there's the Chronicles of Tao which talks about some things that I found quite interesting. I don't know, the whole Chakra thing, it all looks like cross breeding to me with the Monkey King of the winds much like Hanuman. But who knows? Lots of this stuff does come from information gathered from Celestials, or deities of various realms depending on how deeply the person meditated. Meditation itself is as old as focus, or letting go of focus, whichever form you prefer. Spacing out even and remaining in that space is a form of meditation and kids naturally do which heals the brain. Buddhism is all about the view though of dependent origination without substance or a mysterious essence. Our goal is omniscience of the beginningless flow. Yes, I understand that, we are asked the same in Dzogchen and Vajrayana. That's why I just talk sutra or philosophy mainly.

It doesn't seem that scholars agree with your assessment of it's origins. Even the Tao de Ching wasn't written until about the 600 B.C. Then you have Religious Taoism, Philosophical Taoism and Folk Taoism? It looks like all those great Classics didn't really start until anywhere from 600 to 200 B.C. Including the I-Ching, Lau Tzu Confucianism... etc. Your formalized form of Taoism is most definitely influenced by Buddhism. Also... "The foundation of the Asian martial arts is likely a blend of early Chinese and Indian martial arts. Extensive trade occurred between these nations beginning around 600 BC, with diplomats, merchants, and monks traveling the Silk Road. During the Warring States period of Chinese history (480-221 BC) extensive development in martial philosophy and strategy emerged, as described by Sun Tzu in The Art of War (c. 350 BC).[4] An early legend in martial arts tells the tale of a South Indian Pallava prince turned monk named Bodhidharma (also called Daruma), believed to have lived around 550 A.D. The martial virtues of discipline, humility, restraint and respect are attributed to this philosophy.[5] Daruma is also regarded as the founder of Zen Buddhism in China. Thus the values of ethical conduct and self discipline have been intertwined with martial practice since the earliest times.[6] Also in China Buddhabhadra (called Batuo in Mandarin), an Indian dhyana master becomes the first abbot of the Shaolin temple.[7] The Shaolin Monastery was built by the Emperor Xiaowen of the Northern Wei Dynasty in AD 477. The teaching of martial arts in Asia has historically followed the cultural traditions of teacher-disciple apprenticeship. Students are trained in a strictly hierarchical system by a master instructor: Sifu in Cantonese or Shifu in Mandarin; Sensei in Japanese; Sabeom-nim in Korean; Guru in Sanskrit, Hindi, Telugu and Malay; Kruu in Khmer; Guro in Tagalog; Kalari Gurukkal or Kalari Asaan in Malayalam; Asaan in Tamil; Achan or Khru in Thai; and Saya in Myanmar. All these terms can be translated as master, teacher or mentor.[8]"

Dzogchen has different tenets. It doesn't repress much of anything... I corrected my 200 year's to what I meant to put was 2000 years. I've read the history of Taoism and before Buddhism it was pretty wild. More like naturism and kind of a counter Confucianism path. There were different branches. Many scholars talk about how Buddhism influenced you guys. Even Shaolin Martial arts came from Bodhidharma because martial arts was Indian for thousands upon thousands of years before it was in China, supposedly the oldest form of martial arts is Indian. It just developed more in China.

Exactly the goal is different, which I've said a number of times. Our goal is complete liberation from suffering, freedom from unconscious rebirth, and helping others realize the same. But, to say it's completely not influenced by Buddhism which was huge in China for almost 2000 years is silly. See, we see that people need at least the dharma seed to be planted in them, even if they hate it in the life, in another life they will re-encounter it. Because your goal is not complete liberation from Samsara and unconscious rebirth or re-cycling. We see your path as limited and your goal as mundane. But yeah... listen if you might, ignore if you will. No sweat off my back. As far as taking care of itself... that idea that all things start from one place and go to the same is Samsaric to Buddhism. Well, I would say it's complete within the frame point of your goal, which is different. It's not like Hinduism which has the same goal as Buddhism, but doesn't clarify it to the same degree as Buddhism. Taoist goal is entirely different, so were playing in an entirely different ball park. Which is why I didn't say much about it and I don't say much about it. What is the Taoist goal anyway? Of course not, which is why I've been answering questions from people and I answer nicely to people who are nice about it. Who knows.. sometimes you make an effect more by insulting them, and then they think about it more out of anger, and it makes a deeper impression on the mind stream and may bare fruit later in life or in a future life. That's cool, I'm arrogant and outspoken by nature and ghetto culture which I was raised in. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!! EDIT: 200 = 2000 EDIT: It seems that Taoism believes in a single essence that all things are modifications of. That there is a beginning to the universe. That this Tao existed since before the universe. Sounds like the Buddha would have critiqued that too. Sounds like reifying an absorption state in meditation. But, it's still a good path and doesn't lead to eternal damnation. It doesn't seem to complete the goal of immortality though because what happens at the end of the cosmic eon? You just merge with the Tao potentiality for the next coming universe?

Make good criticisms then... Instead of mal-informed ones based upon insecurities. I meant the intention of my apology and my tongue sticking out was that it doesn't matter that I apologize about that, because the point of my post had nothing to do with the quantifier but the over all premise of your post, which is why I added explanations. You know what? Go ahead... I'm not here to talk with people like you my dear. You have a good Taoist practice now, so enjoy. I realize that Marblehead.

The Natives are very private about their already private practices that are mostly quite dead by this point sadly. Or extremely secret in places like NM Navaho's and Pueblo Natives. It's not that easy to find much real Christian Mysticism in America I think. It's always personal. It was easy for me because I was raised Hindu in the West, so I was raised with Eastern views already. Basically because their bliss is still an ignorance and not the omniscience of a Buddha, according to Mahayana of course and not Theravada.

Wow... you are delusional. Your entire premise was deluded... My apology was that you spent all that trivial time arguing about some silly aspect of my quote of you which was basically derogitory from the very beginning. Which was the whole point. All I say is that the paths aren't complete and actually Buddhist influence ad's more completion to every tradition around the entire planet. Including mystic Christian mantra practice and their monk rules, etc. all influenced by Buddhism and Hindu influenced Buddhism. Your Taoism is influenced by the Buddhas teachings as well. Anyway... go look in the proverbial mirror.

BLAH BLAH BLAH... Your overall intention was captured just fine by me which was the entire point. Calling me a lier? Amazing... your entire premise in your initial post was bogus. Mr. Taoist delusion... You could have said, "Sometimes humans"... That would have been objective. Anyway... keep cleaning your mirror. Oh, by the way, I apologize for dropping the Quantifier... I'm wrong, your right...

Dropping the sometimes is not changing your words.

Oh yeah... the Buddha as I quoted somewhere in this room, said that "it's delusional to be attached to any tenet system". That's because they are not absolute, they are relative, like everything else. So, our rules serve a purpose and when they don't we let them go. Not like the 10 commandments or anything like that, though many of those go without saying. A person should be good to their neighbor and his wife and what not. But, our rules serve a purpose of discipline and harnessing focus for specific purposes so that we transcend our limitations by applying limitations that weed out old way's of habit thought and action patterns. Ya dig?

But Tao99, your point from the very beginning was delusional and subjective. Trivia? Taoists don't break down the elements of spiritual practice far enough, how about that? I don't know if I fully believe that as I'm not that well studied in Taoism. But so it'd be a really subjective idea. Also, rules? What, you mean focusing the energy for higher purposes? There are so many tenet systems with different intentions and for different rates and states of personal evolution. It's obvious you don't know what your talking about because you haven't really studied Buddhism that deeply. Dzogchen for instance only has one rule, stay in the state of Rigpa. Do Guru Yoga everyday where one mingles one's mind with the mind's of all enlightened masters. That's it. Buddhism has a different goal from Taoism it seems for the most part anyway. So of course it's going to be different over-all. Taoism also has rules of discipline in order to hone the energy towards a goal. Also, we do prove our metaphysics, which is not really metaphysics as that implies a single substance that all things spring from and are motifications of. But anyway, we prove them to ourselves through meditation, transcending the limits of physical science and the 5 senses. Your free to think it's hog-wash... hey!! Free will! Or is it? Could just be limited perception based upon causes and conditions of limitation. Oh, that Buddhist in me who get's caught up in trivial break downs of the natures of various types of perception. Whao is me! I also did not change your words. I just dropped the Sometimes in the beginning, from the looks of the entire rest of your post, I was quite right in my assessment of your assumptions. I don't have to admit anything, because I'm not the one at fault here. <---Me, all smug and self satisfied in the Florida sun.

Yeah yeah... you know your intentions were to debase and cut down from the beginning. You should have been more like... sometimes people... That'd be more truthful. Everything else is a obvious reaction of my pointing out the initial slur by you. Thanks Mr. Super Tao. I've said that before, when someone called me, "Pussy".

Fair enough. For me there is based upon direct experiencing. But, I understand and I'm not a blind faith type of person either.

I kind of like that actually. That's endearing. Yo... VAJ!! What up dude!!?? Yeah, I can dig that...