Stigweard

Only when it is directed at someone or is over the top. I can safely say that Tao99's creative use of language was "touching the ceiling" and hence the friendly reminder. "No foul, play on!"

Whoa there Tao99!!! A bit excessive on the cursing ... Your making the girls blush Regards, "The Mod Squad"

You guys *shakes head*

And of course we are remembering that that same applies to Taoism right?

But it was you that said "transcendent" Just ribbing ya! You obviously took great care with your wording. Good for you I'll have to stand by Vajrahridaya on this one Marblehead. He has the right to speak freely about whatever he wishes IMO. We just have to stay mindful of the agreements we made over Guidelines for Taoist-Buddhist Dialog. Agreed?

Excellent!! I believe we have made the first steps to many fruitful exchanges. If you ever see me violate the principles I have committed to in this thread then I beg you to assist me by bringing it to my attention immediately. _/\_

I am glad you have made your commitment to the principles and practices of the OP. Let us then use this as our reference point in exploring our mutual diversity. Just as a point then, in reference to the Why Buddhism is Different thread, can you see how the following statements can easily be viewed as revealing a difference to imply a superiority? The key word here is "transcendent" meaning: to rise above or go beyond; to outdo or exceed in excellence. I know you well believe, from your Buddhist framework, that this statement is true. However, by using these terms, there is the inherent implication therein that your difference makes your belief system superior. It is these sort of statements that have "raised the ire" of our resident Taoists, including, to a certain degree, myself. If we are to keep our word to each other and adhere to these guidelines of interfaith dialogue, then I make the suggestion that we be more mindful of such terms. This would be in accordance of principle 5 in the OP.

I am in agreement. Consistency is a virtue didn't you know Good for you

There are plenty enough specifics in there to create harmonious dialogue. In my view the intent is less about having a list we can "call out" on each other and more about having guidelines we can reflect on individually to help us engage effectively with other people even if they are of different spiritual traditions with contrasting views.

Here is my commitment: "I agree in full with the above principles and practices of interfaith dialog and promise to apply my best efforts to upholding them whilst ever engaged in interfaith dialog (or in fact any dialog) here on The TaoBums. If at anytime I should fall short of these guidelines I am happy and willing to receive respectful reminders of these principles and practices from other members of The TaoBums."

I have made a new topic Guidelines for Taoist-Buddhist Dialog. I vote we all head over and post our commitment to these guidelines before continuing.

ROFL Taoists beyond care And beyond all salvation Wild on mountain top

YAY! But stay not within Let us wander in the rain Whilst others get wet

Good o A handshake over the distance for a peaceful settlement found. So now that we have each others word not to try and stand higher than the other let us proceed in good faith. So the question is then: "How can we constructively explore each others differences without allocating descriptives of superior / inferior to either of the respective systems of belief?"

Ahh! See, there I think we have the source of our disparity. We are both looking at each other's paths thinking, "What the hell are you doing that for?!" We are looking at you with the attitude of, "Man would you just shut up already with your incessant descriptions!" And no doubt you are looking at us with the attitude of, "Guys would you just shut up already with your ambiguous mystification!" And no doubt there are onlookers thinking, "Would all you guys just shut up already with both your incessant descriptions and your ambiguous mysticism!" I appreciate your view point and the obvious depth and breadth of your Buddhist studies. Truthfully I can say I have enjoyed learning some more about Buddhism because I was previously painfully ignorant about the fundamental tenets. I have also enjoyed being forced to become very clear in my frugal explanations of Tao. If I can make a request though? Do you think it would be OK if we could drop the superior / inferior thing? I truly would like to learn more about Buddhism but I do find it terribly distracting with all the static involved in heated words clashing against each other. Now I'm not saying let's stop debating stuff because quite frankly I love it as much as you do ("Bring it on!" like a student of mine would say). And I don't even mind getting passionate about what we believe. I just think we could all benefit a whole heap more if the sentiment of, "My way is better than yours," was toned down a little. What do you think?

I sincerely apologize if I have ever given you that impression because, in my Taoist view, superiority is conceptual, dualistic thinking and a reification of Tao. Never will Taoism be any more superior to Buddhism. And I couldn't possibly be so arrogant as to compare Taoism to Buddhism because I haven't studied Buddhism. No my friend, I have infinite respect for Buddhism; in truth I teach my Taijiquan classes at the Pure Land Buddhist College that was established by Ven Master Chin Kung in Toowoomba, Australia. My observation of the Venerables is that they are indeed steeped in virtue and my hope is that my Taoist achievement would one day mirror their Buddhist achievement. And after all, to compare Buddhism and Taoism would, through necessity, require me to separate them and thus I would fundamentally violate the universal unity that, yes, Taoists subscribe to. I am a Taoist because it is my nature to be a Taoist. You are a Buddhist because that also is your nature. My only sincere wish for anyone is for them to become fulfilled within their true nature. I am perceiving one possible difference between the two ontologies and I believe that this may be a root of some of the miscommunication. You see Taoism certainly does observe that the true nature of the Universe is infinitely mysterious in that it is beyond the ability of conceptual description. And if I am right, please correct me otherwise, that Buddhism, by what you are saying, sees that we can indeed provide conclusive rational descriptives to everything?

It is important to note that Taoists are not calling Tao "nothingness" for the reasons I stated in the preceding posts: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=143243 http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=143271

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black Nope Taoists are not "calling some non-thing as the source of all reality". To "call" Tao something, to name it, describe it or quantify it, would indeed be reifying Tao. Once again in the Daodejing: "Being and non-being are polarity aspects, of the deep, subtle mystery." To say Tao is a "beingness" is not the Tao, and likewise to say Tao is a "nothingness" is likewise not Tao because both beingness and nothingness are conceptual descriptions. Even to say that Tao is non-conceptual is still a description. In reading the Daodejing you have to use Ch1 as the keystone for the rest. Whenever you read something that leads you to think that we are reifying Tao you must recall the opening chapter which clearly states that reification of Tao is not the Tao. And I am telling you that by trying to force a description on Tao in your impossible attempts to compare it to Buddhist ontology it is in fact you who are reifying Tao, and thus not only are you missing the subtle mystery of Tao but you are also perpetrating exactly the same error that you are falsely accusing Taoists of doing.

Taken from the Taoist "Treatise on the Mysterious Orifice" written by Xuanweilun in the sixteenth century: "Original nature is spirit, and life is generative and vital energy. Original nature is the Limitless (Wuji), and life is the Great Ultimate (Taiji). Each cannot exist without the other. Some say that Buddhists cultivate only original nature and Taoists cultivate only life. They are wrong, because they don't know that the Buddhist teachings of dissolving the self and eradicating desire are equivalent to the Taoist practice of holding on to the Mother and valuing the emptiness of the Great Beginning." Translated by Eva Wong.

And I return your thanks for engaging me in sincere dialogue Careful now, let's not get fixed on the term "process" even though it is a better descriptive than "thing", remember that Tao means "Way". You have heard of term, "Go with the flow" right? Well that is distinctly a Taoist principle. But what exactly does it mean? Like I mentioned above, the ancient sages made an exhaustive study of the nature of change and they observed a distinct cyclic nature to the process of cause and effect. The documentation of cyclic pattern is formalized in the Yijing / I Ching. From a Taoist point of view this universal rhythm on the level of "beingness" is seen to be the outer extremities or "branches" of Tao. So, on a superficial level, one can be said to be "one with Tao" when one is in tune with the cyclic, rhythmic, pattern of Universal change. In Taoist teachings of virtue, being one with Universal change is called "appropriateness". Within Taoist ontology the symptoms of being out of sync with Universal change are calamities, misfortunes, diseases, strife, and contentions amongst people. The fundamental cause for such disharmonies is the discursive mind full of its conditionings, attachments, desires, and fixations. It is the 'artificial' mind that, through its own self-importance, has blinded itself to the subtle rhythms of Universal life and acts contrary to the appropriate requirements of the given moment. So, on the level of beingness, a natural mind free from conditionings is said to be "one with Tao" because it will be perceptive, sensitive, and responsive to the "flow" of Universal change. However, Taoists also recognized that to live only on the surface of incessant change is to be always tossed this way and that like a leaf in the wind. Though we don't necessarily find that "unsatisfactory" we do recognize the simple fact that being only attached to the surface of life tends to sap one's energy and leads to premature illness and death. Perhaps you Buddhists call this the level of Samsara yes? Again through deep observation of Universal nature, Taoist began seeing that the cycles of change composed of identifiable "elements" or distinct "phases". So, as I mentioned above, the formation of the Wuxing (five elements) and the Yiching (book of changes) came about to assist in understanding these fundamental "building blocks". In a way Taoists over the aeons have deconstructed the Universe going from the coarse level of cause and effect and working their way inwards in an attempt to "know" as much of essence of the Universe as possible. This was not a conceptual process however but rather one of deep observation and meditation. It would be an error to think that Taoists are saying Tao exists contextually to a point in time. To place a time descriptive on Tao immediately places it on the superficial level of "beingness" and thus is not the enternal Tao. Personally I am quite content with the idea of infinite regress of cause and effect. When the Daodejing says, "Before Heaven and Earth was existed there was Tao" the mistake, again, would be to assume it was saying, "Before the beginning of time." Let me explain... Like I said earlier, Taoists observed that because Universal change did in fact cycle in elliptical patterns then basic physics informed them that there simply must be a point of "gravitational pull" around which Universal change "orbited" (please excuse my terminologies here they are only meant for modeling and demonstration). Have a look at the previous diagram I have posted. See it though not as a two-dimensional image but a three-dimensional spiral (and in truth it is multi-dimensional) extending infinitely away from you as well as infinitely toward you and beyond you. What Taoists observed is that as the outer elements became more and more subtle, as they "traveled" closer and closer to the "core" of the Universal spiral, then distinctions became less and less until arriving at the core itself life merged into "Nothingness" (i.e. the empty circle at the center). So we see that the ancient Taoists observed that the Universe was in fact a "spectrum" of manifestation ranging from the course level of Beingness all the way through to the ineffable and mysterious "core" of Nothingness. The vital thing to see here is that this inconceivable subtle "axis" is at all times "now". The process of "Nothingness" manifesting into "Beingness" is in truth happening right now. Taoists, well at least this one, do not necessarily believe that at some point in the primordial past life "began". Not at all, because that "process" is ever now. To take this all one step further, Taoist also believe that, through the process of refining the personal elements of one's own Beingness (i.e. the internal five elements etc.) the practitioner can sublimate their consciousness and entire being into more subtle levels and thus "transcend" the outer or coarse level of Universal life and evolve ever-closer "toward" the subtle essence of the Universe. Thus we can "be one with Tao" on the practical level of appropriate response to the changing nature of Beingness but we can ultimately "be one with Tao" by sublimating our being into the "Nothingness" of the subtle Universal essence.

Reemphasizing this post

Feeling frustrated mikaelz? Excellent!!! I have to admit I have felt a little perturbed myself at the lack of respect shown here to others' points of view. Dialogue is about dutifully considering other peoples comments but what the Buddha Boys are doing is simply steamrolling the comments of others with that attitude of, "If I beat my drum loud enough and drown out the sounds of the other players then that constitutes a win for me." The reason why I repeat my comments is because they are yet to be fully heard. You guys quite happily harp on and on about "reification" when, in regards to Tao, you are quite simply wrong. Please don't expect me to sit back and watch as you misrepresent Tao with tones of authority simply because from your very blinkered Buddhist view point it would appear to your superficial and wholly biased analysis that Taoists reify Tao. In reference to all the conventional definitions of reify you are wrong, and even with your Buddhist distorted version of reify you are still wrong when you say Taoist reify Tao. Lets look at your explanation: No. Tao is not an abstract idea that we then try and "make real" by superimposing it over the universe. You have to look deeper into Taoist ontology to understand it properly. Just giving it a cursory glance like you (the collective) are doing is to miss "it". Taoism first and foremost recognizes the incessant changing nature of the Universe, just like you Buddhists. Because change was seen as the only constant then the ancient sages devoted their research to understand the nature of change. After aeons of empirical observation and documentation it was seen that change was not purely random, there was a pattern to change that seemed to flow in a cyclic fashion. After much more documentation and observation it was seen that these cycles of change moved in steady, predictable patterns. Thus was formalized the Taoist models like the Ten Celestial Stems and Twelve Terrestrial Branches , the I Ching, the Wuxing etc. Now through their deep understanding of nature the question was posed: "If the multitude of universal change is cycling in predictable patterns, then what exactly is it cycling around?" There must be a center point of "gravity," so to speak, around which the Universe is orientating. In answering that question Taoists have come to observe and acknowledge the subtle truth of Tao. Please note that this is purely and empirically an observation of Universal Truth not an "abstraction that we are holding to be real". Neither is Tao seen as a "thing" because for it to be a "thing" it would have to exist on the surface or outer rim of the universal spiral where "beingness" occurs. And thus the centre or origination of the cycles of change were observed by necessity to be fundamentally without "beingness" and thus a "nothingness". However the dualistic notion of beingness and nothingness are transcended as Tao is seen as the unity of both the manifest and unmanifest universe, both existing simultaneously. Tao is the changing surface, the incessant cycles of cause and effect, and Tao is also the mysterious and ineffable subtle essence. Thus in their observation the ancient sages of Tao saw subtle essence of the universe as more of a "process" rather than a "thing" which can be reified as being real in terms of something that can be clearly defined. As such the term Tao, or "Way, was designated as the only fitting descriptive to this Universal point of orientation.