Stigweard

Over here: Ten Celestial Stems and Twelve Terrestrial Branches

Interesting how you are so selective over the application of your own Buddhist tenets because, as we see here now by your own admission, the argument on this forum was dependently originated by your principle agenda to "argue for Buddhist superiority." You were initially treated with the respect that Taoism engenders and folks attempted to engage you with dialogue, sharing their learnings of Tao. However, I was not at all surprised to see members, which now includes myself, become increasingly less tolerant of your comments as you steamrolled with your campaign of proselytism. I have to admit, through me discovering my limits of tolerance, in this topic I have made critical comments about Buddhism which I am apologetic for because I have immanent respect for Buddhism. Through my close work with the Pure Land Buddhist College here in my home town I have seen the Venerables display great compassion and generosity within my community. I am grateful to have them as examples of Buddhism. I also realize that I have broken my own commitments for Taoist-Buddhist dialogue. As such I will once again renounce and apologize for any insinuations I have made of Taoist superiority. If I ever break this commitment again I would like someone to please step in and slap me around the head and shoulders.

Sorry V but if that was "all" you have been saying you would not have had the backlash of opposition. If you see Taoism and Buddhism as being fundamentally incompatible (which my experience refutes without question) I will persist in questioning your motivation for maintaining your presence here.

It would appear you will never know because it is apparent that you can't see beyond your own dogma to effectively hear or know what I am saying. You have demonstrated through your obtuseness that you are willing draw you own conclusions of what is being said, regardless of what is being said, to suit your own fixations on what you think is right. It is like you are saying, "You guys are wearing green shirts," to which we say, "No they are actually blue," to which you return, "See I told you that you are wearing green shirts." It is impossible to enter dialogue with someone whose "logic" works that way. Yes and what of it? So what if Taoism is a monist path? So what if we see the eternal Dao as the subtle Universal Essence? Just because Buddhism has within its dogma that it rejects Monism does that mean you or it is right or in someway better? No it certainly doesn't! I LOVE DAO BEING THE SUBTLE UNIVERSAL ESSENCE !!! I love the fact that in embracing the intrinsic mystery of life that I don't have to become caught within the attachments and confines of description and rationalization like you are. I love the fact that my awareness is free from the constraints of having to be "right". I love the fact that I am able to let go of the ultimate folly of conceptualization and experience my reality directly and universally. I love the fact that the spectrum of my true nature extends in oneness with the universal essence and that I am every day growing more and more in communion with wholeness of my integral self. Excuse me for paraphrasing my illustrious Prime Minister, but to me here is how I am currently feeling about you Vajrahridaya: Most of the people on this forum are in one way or another Taoist in orientation. If you find Taoist precepts disagreeable, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because Tao is part of our culture. We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us. This is our forum and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy it. But once you are done criticizing and demeaning our beliefs, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great TaoBum freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'. If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the forum YOU accepted.

A nice vote for equality SereneBlue Well said!

One of my experiences and how I "handled" it might be useful for some. Sleep Paralysis or Demonic Possession?

Yup

Vajrahridaya, Your post only reaffirms your inability and unwillingness to do what you are asking of us - to view your concept of dependent origination on its own terms from a true Buddhist perspective. Until you can explore and discuss Taoism without making your hierarchical inferences about the superiority of Buddhism you will never truly enter dialogue here.

This is your misinterpretation what is being illuminated in the Daodejing and you are misinterpreting it this way because it suits your attachment to your Buddhist ontology. To even say that "Tao exists from it's own side" is a blatant demonstration of your misunderstanding and leaves me convinced that you do not take the time to try and comprehend the responses of the people, including myself, who have tried to engage you in sincere dialogue. You have said that I need to take the time to understand dependent origination on its own terms and yet you are demonstrating your unwillingness to understand Tao in the same light. I am not trying to make Tao and dependent origination "equal in meaning". My point, once again, is that in declaring your concept of dependent origination as being the fundamental cause of reality you are making dependent origination "real" and thereby, once again by the conventional definition, reifying it. You may have read some books which you have interpreted for your own use, but you have not lived it and therefore do not know it. By your superficial and obviously fallacious understanding of Taoism you are disqualified from comparing it to anything else. Talk of Buddhism all you want, but please, if you wish to find harmony amongst those of us here that do make it our life, do not make hierarchical comparisons of Taoism.

Regardless of your cries of, "You don't understand," the simple objective facts are that, by declaring that "infinite regress and dependent origination" is the ultimate explanation of reality, you are, by the true definition, literally reifying dependent origination. You are taking the abstract concept "dependent origination" and making it real by saying that it is reality, that all things arise and are existent because of "dependent origination." And then, to extend my mirth, you are implying that if I took the time to understand dependent origination on its own terms then I would know that you are not reifying it. Isn't this exactly what we have been trying to say to you about your slanderous accusations of Taoists reifying Tao ??? So now I have a choice before me. I could, as you have done, pounce on every instance in every post of you mentioning dependent origination and make a song and dance about how you are reifying dependent origination including not-so-subtle inferences of how Taoism is better. Or I could respectfully hold my tongue and take the time to learn more about your point of view and explore, through sincere dialogue, how we can enhance each others paths. How would you like me to proceed?

Aussie! Aussie! Aussie! Oi! Oi! Oi!

Yes of course it is possible to "discern one's true nature" without a teacher. Remember all paths have their challenges, thus having a teacher can be just as much a potential obstacle as not having a teacher. The key teaching here from the Daodejing is: Humankind conforms to Earth. Earth conforms to the sky. The sky conforms to the Subtle Origin. The Subtle Origin conforms to its own nature. Thus the Taoist counsel is to model ourselves on nature, in essence make nature your teacher. Ultimately our true teacher is the subtle responsiveness of our own integral nature, our De. Meditation can be useful to dissolve the disparities of one's own mind and thus yes will bring ones awareness into integral harmony. However, we do not need a special event or activity to be "close to Tao". Tao is to be found in each and every ordinary, mundane moment of life. I have to say Birch Tree that your sincerity is an example to us all. In this you have been a wonderful teacher.

Then you are, by your own definition and the orthodox definition, officially reifying "infinite regress and dependent origination," and thus you are in violation of your own Budddhist principles.

So correct me if I am wrong but you would say that "infinite regress and dependent origination" is the ultimate explanation of reality ... yes?

It's all good my friend Just remember you have plenty of good vibes coming your way - always.

In the Toltec tradition this is called "Controlled Folly"

Do you have proof of this?

Why does a river flow into the ocean? Why does night follow day? Why do plants reach toward the light of the sun?

If have had "lively" debates before over whether or not Taoism is a science. I favoured the affirmative in the sense that it is an ontology, or a science of existence. However, even though we have sophisticated objectified models like the I Ching, we simply have to accept that Taoism, to a certain extent, most definitely incorporates subjective analysis. In regard to scientific proof of Qi, like Ya Mu demonstrated through the links, science, whilst yet to have the instrumentation to measure it, has definitely been able to measure the effects. My theory is that, because Qi is fundamentally a biological/natural energy, the "best" testing instruments are biological based (i.e. plants, bacteria, as well as advanced human sensory perception). It would seem rather silly to me, if not delusional, to deny yourself of the scientifically proven benefits of meditation and qigong merely because conventional science has yet to quantify the subtle Universal energies.

Hmm... In the tradition of Tao that I study, Quanzhen School 全眞 (Complete Reality), the Five Blessings or Goals of a naturally fulfilled life are: Happiness Longevity Wealth Health Natural Death So if someone dies prematurely in a way that is not "natural" then they have fallen short of the goal, so to speak.