forestofclarity

I would keep in mind that almost any teacher of any repute has been called into question on this forum. Mantak Chia, Lama Dorje, Michael Winn, David Verdesi, Wang Liping, Waysun Liao, the list goes on and on. Most people have strong allegiances to one school or form of practice than another, and sadly here this is often all too evident in critiques of differing schools. I would invite the WKK detractors to point out where his methods fail, if nothing more, than to educate beginners. Simply engaging in innuendo seems very cowardly to me.

Most Taoist teachings I've come across have been expensive. Most Buddhist ones have been available on dana. Not an absolute rule, just my experience.

Exorcist, it would be interesting if you ever did some sort of beginner's guide to Taoism. One thing I've found is that in the West, anyway, Buddhism seems to be more accessible. I likely may have down more of a Taoist path if there were good teachers around. As it is, Taoism seems 1) more coded; 2) requires a great deal of continuous, ongoing attention from a teacher; and is 3) seemingly short on good teachers in the West. Also, Taoism is much more expensive!

I just wanted to clarify a point that came up in the objective reality thread. There is a common conception in the West that emptiness amounts to nothingness, nonexistence, or something of that sort. This is not true. Emptiness refers to a specific lack. What is that lack? Of an independent, permanent existence. Of an ultimate solidity. In Buddhism, emptiness may be seen as a shorthand for the 3 marks of existence (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, non-self). You can study this in the sphere of your own experience, through meditation and/or contemplation. There's been a lot of talk about roses. What is a rose? Is it the petals? The stem? The thorns? The scent? Individually, it is none of these things. What can we take away before it loses its "rose" nature? A single petal? All of them? It will be impossible to identify any specific "rose" nature. Yet we can smell it, if we touch the thorns, there is pain. The rose is real, even if ultimately the rose is empty. Further, a rose does not stand alone, it is a part of the universe (dependent origination). It relies on the sun, the air, nutrients, soil--- if you expand it far enough, the existence of a single rose requires an entire universe to produce it. In a sense, you can say that a rose is not a rose--- it is a form of sunlight, or water, or atoms. But analyzing each possible thing, you will find that it, too, is empty (i.e. not permanent, not standing apart). In fact, it is the fluidity and flexibility that emptiness gives the universe that allows for things to change. If my mind were a solid thing, then how could I ever learn? If my body wasn't subject to change, how could I ever grow? Emptiness allows for all things. So what? Well, if you see emptiness all around, then there will be less grasping. Why grasp at the rose when it is doomed to die? One can enjoy it when it is there, but once dissolved in the ocean of impermanence, to long for it will only cause suffering. One can then approach all manifestations with a sense of wu wei. Knowing it is empty, one should not cling or crave, but accept and enjoy. For more on emptiness, check out Greg Goode's page.

MH, As a Taoist, you should know that spending so much time on the division side (i.e., the manifest, the splintered, the different) of the equation is not so Taoist. The other side is the unity side, the unnamed, etc. I would invite you to investigate the Taoist-Buddhist links before making such odd statements. Many Taoist and Buddhist sages do not make these disctinctions. Read the Secret of the Golden Flower or Opening the Dragon's Gate. Read actual conversations with Chinese Taoists, as contained in the Road to Heaven or John Blofeld's travelogues. When it rains, both Taoists and Buddhists get wet! It sounds to me that what you call "Taoism" is simply a narrowly interpreted view in accordance with Western academic culture. It seems to me that the true spirit of Taoism is open, flexible, and inclusive--- recognizing the relative nature of things. I would think a true Taoist or a "Real Man (or Woman)" would be able to sit with the Taoist magician, the Buddhist monk, the prostitue, the Christian, the sage, sick and the damned.

I think there are problems with positing a true self as consciousness. I do not think that consciousness as we think of it is the same as the ultimate principle proposed by the advaitins. I also think that this sort of talk leads to the immediate mirroring awarenss, wherein they stop as consider this the ultimate principle. People nowadays take the immediate mirroring awareness to be the ultimate principle. This is why Xuansha said to people, 'Tell me, does it still exist in remote uninhabited places deep in the mountains?' ---Foyan, Instant Zen

I am going to give the answers now. If you don't want to know, skip the middle part of this post. 1. Abbott Jen, a Taoist, from the Road to Heaven 2. Stonehouse, a Buddhist, from the Zen Works of Stonehouse, trans. Red Pine 3. Uncle Jung, a Taoist, from the Secret and Sublime, by John Blofeld 4. Yu Men, a Buddhist, from the Golden Age of Zen, by J. Wu Merry Christmas!

I see only one person has arisen to the spirit of the challenge. Steve F, I will say you got at least one right. Answers still to come. Well said. The differences tend to lie on the exterior. I notice that the further I go in, the more similar it is. This goes not only with religions, but also with people. On the surface, we look very different. Internally, there is more similarity. At our cores, beyond the swirls of thoughts, emotions, and bodily manifestations, we are identical.

Sounds like you're approaching it with sincerity. This should take you far.

Impermanence is a result of emptiness. If things were not empty, they would not constantly be in flux. It may sound odd at first blush, but not so if you work with it. Compare TTC Chapter 11. Even more, try to capture the redness of red, the hardness of hard, the sound of sound. There is nothing mystical here, or transcendent. Things either are this way, or they are not. This is where the crucible of experience must come in. Look and see for yourself. If things are not so, reject it and move on. There are levels of understanding. Intellectual understanding is only scratching the surface. There is an unborn, unmanifest in Buddhism.

In this case, maybe it is better to be a friend than a teacher.

I think this is a fairly common stage of practice. Many people at this point go into the pushy route, and end up turning people off to spirituality. The key is to learn timing: when to say something, and when to say nothing. This can only come with experience. My general rule of thumb is let people ask if they want to, or mention these things only if relevant to the situation. Certainly there is no one size fits all spirituality.

I used to be troubled by the legend of the Buddha leaving his wife and baby. How could he do such a thing? Having a son of my own, it seems clear now: His love for his family pushed him to solve the mysteries of life and death. Seeing his baby son, knowing that he, too, would be subject to old age, disease, and death, he felt compelled to do something. Both his wife and son are counted among the arahats. So if you buy into Buddhism, and achieving nibbana is the highest thing possible, then he gave far more to his family than he took away. Just my thoughts.

It is no surprise that there is so much confusion about certain notions. First, there is no Buddhist truth or Taoist truth. There is simply truth. Second, emptiness does not equal non-existence. If something is empty, that means: a. It lacks a permanent substance or essence; b. It is subject to change; c. It is not separate from the rest of the universe. This is not to say that the thing does not exist. Third, Buddhism does not teach apathy; quite the opposite. Non-attachment means to not cling, to grasp, to try to hold onto what is constantly changing; or to accept what is there in front of you instead of wishing for something else. Yet these things are all asides from the central question. For all the denials, emotional appeals, and begging the question, no one as yet answered the question: have you ever experienced anything apart from the mind?

As above, so below. As the principles of emptiness and so forth take root deep in the mind, it subtly transforms all your life. Thus, harsh, solid problems become fluid opportunities for harmony. If you recognize the emptiness of all things, then problems such as cancer, death, physical pain; or job-related stress, paper cuts, and traffic jams--- lose much of their power. If you live in a solid, unchanging world, essentially you are in a prison. If you live in a constantly fluid, dynamic world, then there is freedom. So this is not idle metaphysics.

Behold a diamond The elder said to me, but All I saw was shit

Of course. They just have the be thoughtful and relevant. This is truly the hard part, because women, like the Tao, are mysterious.

This is exactly the problem. It is not the same tree. Relatively speaking, there have been many changes: the movement of sap, the sloughing of old bark, the movement of insects. Atomically, the molecules and atoms are shifting in and out of patterns of alignment. We assume it is the same, we assume that it is solid and unchanging, just like we assume our mind patterns are who we really are.

A few notes: 1. G. said that one can never know the level of being of one who is higher than you. You can only tell those who are lower, because you've already been there. 2. There is a great story about the Buddha before he sat under the Bodhi tree. He called out the gods to come forth with the solution to the problems of life and suffering. There was no divine assistance coming. Ultimately, we're on our own with the spiritual path. A teacher can point, or describe, but we still need to do the work ourselves. Even making wrong choices is a part of the learning experience.

Scientific experiments all take place within consciousness. Perceiving the thermometer is a mental phenomenon. This is like arguing that dream fire is objective because you can conduct dream scientific experiments on it. My question to all of you who accept an "objective" world outside of consciousness: have you ever seen it?

Prince Hisoka, I would echo what most others are saying here. If you're ready to run off and become a monk, that's fine, but few people are. Even a few minutes a day can be helpful. I would recommend sitting every day, at the same time if possible. If you can only do 5 minutes, do that. It's better than nothing. But do it everyday. So which way is the best? You need to find that for yourself. Experiment, try different things. The Buddha is said to have taught 10,000 medicines because everyone has a different affliction.

I might also suggest checking out Bhante G's monastary: Bhavana Society Great center, good food, all on dana. Also, good teachers. Classic mindfulness practice, lucidly explained. The drawbacks about Goenka tend to be: 1. A militant mindset. This can be good, depending on who you are. Some people call it Buddhist boot camp. 2. A narrow view of dharma. This is the way, the only way, and the best way. Don't think about anything else. 3. Lack of personal experience. The teachers all follow a script, and the teachings are all through video. There's no personalizing the message.

We don't see the world, we see mental forms. This is difficult to see if you start with so-called solid things like trees. But take something softer, like heat from a fire. If you stick your hand too close, you don't feel the fire, you feel pain and hotness. Now put a poker in the fire. No pain. So is the pain in the fire, or in you? If in you, how can we say it is objective? Oddly, George Berkeley gave us the tree in the forest scenario: Dialogues of Hylas and Philonous