Buddhism transcends the Tao

[Birch]

I'm on these boards because the people here are brilliant.

[doc benway]

shit...weres ma balloon...all this hot air goin ta waste...havent you boys heard a global warmin...

 

Thanks for that - it's important to come back down to earth once in a while...

 

I'm on these boards because the people here are brilliant.

...

 

 

You're one of them!

_/\_

[forestofclarity]

The brilliance is in you. The people on this board are just the conditions that bring it out.

 

I'm on these boards because the people here are brilliant.

[dwai]

We started a discussion to discuss the differences and similarities between Advaita and Buddhism and the discussion also paved way for differences between Taoism and Buddhism. Some of the claims made by our Buddhist brothers are these:

 

- Tao Te Ching is the most mis-translated work ever. I asked Thusness once to look through about 100 Tao Te Ching sample English translations of Chapter 1, and he said only 1 or 2 can make it, most just seem silly and off the mark.

 

- According to Lao Tzu, the greatest calamity is in having a body, thus he teaches the way of extinguishing the body to attain the realm of wu or non-being. Moreover, the greatest cause that burdens the body is in having knowledge, thus he teaches the way of abandoning knowledge to enter the realm of hsu[v] or emptiness. These teachings are similar to those of the vehicles of `Sraavakas and Pratyekabuddhas. He is like a Pratyekabuddha because he having lived in the time before Buddhism came to China, realized the truth of non-being by contemplating the changing nature of the world. Judging from the fact that he regards emptiness, non-being, and tzu-jan[w] or spontaneity as the final principles, his teachings are heterodox. But judging from the facts that his heart was full of compassion for the salvation of the world and that he attained the realm in which man and heaven mutually penetrate each other and in which being and non-being mutually reflect each other, he is also like a Bodhisattva. From the viewpoint of experience or skillful means, he was really (a Bodhisattva) appearing in the form of Brahmaa in order to teach the world. From the viewpoint of reality, he was the one who had attained the samaadhi of emptiness through pure living according to the vehicles of men and heaven.

 

- Also, this idea that Hinduism and Buddhism is included in the Tao is something akin to a view that everything is one. No everything is connected. Buddhism is a path out of Samsara, out of the Tao. Hinduism is a path within Samsara, so one with the Tao.

 

- Brahman, Tao, God, these are all samsaric concepts. We have very intensely deep attachment to these concepts that exist since beginningless time. Freedom from Samsara is much harder than most paths make it out to be. Though the Buddha said his Dharma is so simple a kid could understand it, but he said, "Could" understand it, not "would" understand it.

 

- I have seen the Tao directly, and then I transcended it. Not permanently, but I have that direct experiencing.

The Tao is a cosmic essence, sorry this also is dependently originated and without inherent existence. I realized it was a mistaken interpretation of mystic experience and moved on.

 

. So what really is the use of Taosim?

. A stop gap to get to the Buddhist teachings? Does it help on the way?

. Or are we good directly jumping to the "correct" teaching?

. Is there is a separate audience for these teachings - like a more qualified one for Buddhism?

. Is Tao a concept that is unneeded and the cause of not reaching a state of ultimate non-duality?

. Or, are we really misinterpreting the Tao and Taosim?

 

These can be discussed in the Advaita thread but makes more sense to have a separate one with focus on the Tao.

 

Dear SiliconValley,

 

I understand that the other thread was triggered by me and that many (including yourself) might not agree with me.

 

But the fact of the matter is that Tao, Brahman, Sunyata cannot really be described. We can try and try but no use. It is the culmination and fruition of dedicated practice. We are all travellers on the same path. How can words or rational minds encapsulate something that doesn't even belong to the realm where words and ration thinking works?

 

Words, intellect, etc work at the phenomenal level. Brahman, Tao etc are completely separate from these levels. Nothing from the material level can fathom it. No words can capture it's essence. All we can do is try and use various frameworks of categorization and recognition to realize this fact.

 

Tao can only be experienced. And no amount of mental gymnastics can capture this experience in words. In effect, my purpose with the other thread was to show, that Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism all point to this fact. Only way to understand Tao is to become Tao.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dear SiliconValley,

 

I understand that the other thread was triggered by me and that many (including yourself) might not agree with me.

 

But the fact of the matter is that Tao, Brahman, Sunyata cannot really be described. We can try and try but no use. It is the culmination and fruition of dedicated practice. We are all travellers on the same path. How can words or rational minds encapsulate something that doesn't even belong to the realm where words and ration thinking works?

 

Words, intellect, etc work at the phenomenal level. Brahman, Tao etc are completely separate from these levels. Nothing from the material level can fathom it. No words can capture it's essence. All we can do is try and use various frameworks of categorization and recognition to realize this fact.

 

Tao can only be experienced. And no amount of mental gymnastics can capture this experience in words. In effect, my purpose with the other thread was to show, that Vedanta, Buddhism, Taoism all point to this fact. Only way to understand Tao is to become Tao.

 

Buddhists don't agree. There is no becoming anything for a Buddhist. There is no conceptless ground of experience that subsumes all equally. There is no transcendent being that cannot be described.

 

Yes, in Buddhahood realization is free from concepts, but in a different way that you are experiencing it is.

 

In Buddhism, realization is dependent upon the viewless view that there is no inherent existence that stands alone free from concepts. That experience is based on the fact that there are and always will be concepts, on a relative level, so your absolute is also relative. Brahman has nothing to do with the Buddhas expression of Shunyata.

 

Buddhas realization is not a stripping away, but a cutting through. There is no essential nature that exists that all is one with according to the Buddha.

 

That, like I said, is a Hindu dogma, like an imperialist trying to subsume all other religions saying it's all one. Feels good, but it's just not true. It's a feel good based on an ignorant view that leads to the recycling of mind streams that experience this as absolute, thus the cycling of samsaric experience continues, from one universal expression to the next.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Siliconvalley1]

That, like I said, is a Hindu dogma, like an imperialist trying to subsume all other religions saying it's all one. Feels good, but it's just not true. It's a feel good based on an ignorant view that leads to the recycling of mind streams that experience this as absolute, thus the cycling of samsaric experience continues, from one universal expression to the next.

 

Take a break and lighten up man!

 

What you state is just the "Buddhist" viewpoint. There is nothing to prove that alone is right for one or for all! That is "your" view and may be "good" for you. That is not necessarily true for all! A lokayata who never believed in any of this shit would have probably thrown hot soup if he were told all this ...

[Vajrahridaya]

Take a break and lighten up man!

 

What you state is just the "Buddhist" viewpoint. There is nothing to prove that alone is right for one or for all! That is "your" view and may be "good" for you. That is not necessarily true for all! A lokayata who never believed in any of this shit would have probably thrown hot soup if he were told all this ...

 

Wouldn't matter if he did get mad. Brahmin's got mad at the Buddha for subverting their views.

 

Siliconvalley...

 

Take a break from what?

 

I'm doing my dharma and learning from myself as I write. I'm into writing! Discussion inspires words. I don't get the same inspiration staring at a blank page. Plenty here enjoy my writings and learn from them, just as I am learning of myself by writing and objectifying my personality to see it in a concrete way. I am also refining the skills of expression. This is fun for me!!

 

I hope your finding out about yourself in your personal attacks.

[Siliconvalley1]

That, like I said, is a Hindu dogma, like an imperialist trying to subsume all other religions saying it's all one. Feels good, but it's just not true. It's a feel good based on an ignorant view that leads to the recycling of mind streams that experience this as absolute, thus the cycling of samsaric experience continues, from one universal expression to the next.

 

Talking of attacks, grooming of personality, expression ... oh yes, you did agree you don't believe in "feel good"...

 

yeah yeah, every one's ignorant ... but wait..if I say something I am personally attacking ...

[Tao99]

 

Siliconvalley...

 

Take a break from what?

 

I am learning of myself by writing and objectifying my personality to see it in a concrete way.

 

 

Here's a quote from you earlier:

 

"It's just that Buddhism is as perfect a religion as religion can get ..." 'Vajrahridaya

 

What do you learn here?

 

You come on a Taoist Discussion forum to tell the "Taoists" that their way is inferior, and that your way is the most perfect in the world. I can't imagine any Taoist I know going on esangha and telling the Buddhists that their way is inferior given that our way is the most perfect. That would be obnoxious. They just don't have the Ego-Self Attachment or obnoxious sense of superiority to do that. We are more of a "you go yours and we'll go ours, and on a shared planet all we need in common is good will and compassion." End of story.

 

Even in this thread you don't see any of this ego ridden superiority complex where Taoists feel they need to say 'we are it - the most perfect - and you ain't.' Kudos to them for that - they have obviously transcended Ego Attachment way beyond where you are.

 

To say that on the Buddhist esangha is one thing, but to say it on a Taoist discussion forum is just plain obnoxious. To say it here also shows a strong ego attachment.

 

As a Taoist I could give you 'my reasons why ours is most perfect' and yours ain't. But I'M NOT INTERESTED.

 

I will just say "you go yours and I'll go mine, and maybe this century we can all get along without turning it into a you suck contest".

Edited May 31, 2009 by Tao99

[Birch]

Steve and Forestofsouls. I'm so touched! Thank you!

 

I was wandering back through the thread to get an intellectual grip on all the things everyone was saying (and I guess I should try again because I kept getting stuck) and I came across your posts quite unexpectedly. Wow.

 

You brought a smile to my face and a tear to my eye.

[Meson]

There is no becoming anything for a Buddhist. There is no transcendent being that cannot be described.

 

Buddhas realization is not a stripping away, but a cutting through.

 

Hi, just wondered if you could say a bit more about these, how you interpret it?

 

Thanks!

[Vajrahridaya]

'Tao99'

Here's a quote from you earlier:

 

"It's just that Buddhism is as perfect a religion as religion can get ..." 'Vajrahridaya

 

What do you learn here?

 

You come on a Taoist Discussion forum to tell the "Taoists" that their way is inferior, and that your way is the most perfect in the world.

 

Well actually, I was reminded by Wang Liping's teachings and how pure and good they are shortly after I may have said a few things about Taoism. I do have my opinions and I'm not the only one on here. I was really asked to come here just to debate on the Buddhist vs. Advaita thread.

 

I was reminded of Wang Liping's lineage of Taoism and am in quite good agreement with him and quite amazed by him in fact. I just hadn't thought of him for some 15 years or so until I came here.

 

I can't imagine any Taoist I know going on esangha and telling the Buddhists that their way is inferior given that our way is the most perfect. That would be obnoxious. They just don't have the Ego-Self Attachment or obnoxious sense of superiority to do that. We are more of a "you go yours and we'll go ours, and on a shared planet all we need in common is good will and compassion." End of story.

 

Sure, I feel that. But, why be threatened? Don't read it. But yes, I said the things I said on the Advaita vs. Buddhist board, so... what's the big deal? Everyone has opinions. Just ignore mine then. I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings.

 

Even in this thread you don't see any of this ego ridden superiority complex where Taoists feel they need to say 'we are it - the most perfect - and you ain't.' Kudos to them for that - they have obviously transcended Ego Attachment way beyond where you are.

 

Ok...

 

But, debating has nothing to do with ego. Taoists debate with each other about which path is more pure. It's about finding clarity.

 

As a Taoist I could give you reasons why ours is most perfect and yours ain't. But I'M NOT INTERESTED.

 

 

I will just say "you go yours and I'll go mine, and maybe this century we can all get along without turning it into a you suck contest".

 

I never made it a you suck contest. Many times I have said that all paths that are good, are good, but not all paths are complete.

 

You are reacting way too emotionally.

 

Talking of attacks, grooming of personality, expression ... oh yes, you did agree you don't believe in "feel good"...

 

yeah yeah, every one's ignorant ... but wait..if I say something I am personally attacking ...

 

I never said anything about not feeling good. Just that the Buddhist texts talk about layers in feeling good and the causes. My argument was that the cause of Advaitin feeling good is based on a formless all pervasive absolute entity. Buddhists feel good based upon freedom from proliferation of any sort.

 

So.. I do believe in feeling good! The Supreme good feeling is what I'm after.

 

Anyway... Silicon.. your still just arguing circles attacking the person and not the writings.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Siliconvalley1]

I was really asked to come here just to debate on the Buddhist vs. Advaita thread.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi, just wondered if you could say a bit more about these, how you interpret it?

 

Thanks!

 

I'll do my best that I can muster at this moment.

 

The subtle idea of a subtle Self that everything pivots upon universally, gives basis for absorption meditation practice. It's basically where one sets up a concept based upon a certain way of interpreting findings in nature, and contemplation, like mirrors and the objects reflected in them. So, these paths that set up an ultimate concept that is the true identity of all, Buddhists find fault with. The Advaitin finds the mirror to be ultimate, while the Buddhist see's the reflections and the reflector to be interdependent and both lacking inherent existence. So the meditative experience differs and the ensuing sahaja (spontaneous open eye) samadhi experience differs as well.

 

Advaitins say, "neti-neti" or not this, not that.. but then they say... "Tat tvam asi" or, "That I Am" as in they take away all seeming concepts set upon the formless concept of a hidden entity behind the mind in the Turiya state of meditation, some systems talk about going deeper, but it's still finding some sort of ultimate identity behind the seeming moving phenomena. The Buddha said that this formless concept behind things is only a short repose (short as in maybe billions of years, but not eternally) and not the complete realization. He talks about these absorptions in the description of the Jhanas. But, he said none of these will satisfy the path of complete liberation. Even integrating these findings with material reality will not complete the path he said.

 

Buddhists meditate in a way where they see the inherent non-abiding-ness, impermanent nature of things, so even the witness behind the mind is cut through with the view that is set up in the Buddhist texts offered by Buddhas.

 

It leads to a different type of samadhi... not that the absorption samadhi doesn't happen for buddhists, it's just that the findings in those samadhi's are not considered as ultimate. We see everything as groundless. We don't interpret the experience of concept-less samadhi as an ultimate state of being. There is no ultimate nature that things superimpose onto, everything is equally empty all the way through from the perceiver to the perceived and the act of perceiving, both individually and in a cosmic sense.

 

It's like the difference between seeing everything as water, or seeing everything as steam. I know, physically they are the same substance. But as a metaphor, one is less substantial and more transparent than the other way of viewing the ocean of cosmos.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[forestofclarity]

Correction. Vajrahridaya states "a" Buddhist view, which others may or may not share. It may be a surprise to some, but there is no Buddhist pope!

 

I think we can look at this thread and the Buddhism v. Advaita thread as a good learning point of what is called a "thicket of views."

 

Take a break and lighten up man!

 

What you state is just the "Buddhist" viewpoint. T

[dwai]

 

I guess safety IS in numbers...or is it?

[Vajrahridaya]

Correction. Vajrahridaya states "a" Buddhist view, which others may or may not share. It may be a surprise to some, but there is no Buddhist pope!

 

I think we can look at this thread and the Buddhism v. Advaita thread as a good learning point of what is called a "thicket of views."

 

I've only elaborated on one view entirely.

 

The viewless view... very simple. I just applied it to as close to infinite direction as I could in a few posts.

 

No thicket of views here. You should read with more scrutiny and focus.

 

Anyway... I didn't think that many minds would change. But a couple have gained interest and understanding from one point or another.

 

[xabir2005]

Very interesting, I sometimes wonder why I'm on these boards debating too!

 

Where does it really lead?

 

Thoughts, more thoughts, more ego, I'm right your wrong... wait maybe you are right, I'll add that to myself, now I'm better than i was a few moments ago, etc. etc.

 

Accept, reject, grasp, grasp, wait don't grasp, oh crap I'm grasping at not grasping.

 

That's a lot of what I see here, in myself, and implied in some of the posts. Check how defensive we can get, that's a good indication we still think we have a persona

 

No ill will intended, just thought this was a good opportunity to point out an observation.

If you haven't watched this video you should:

 

Talks about the benefits of debate and the proper way to do it. Of course, debating for ego is the improper way to do it.

[rex]

Buddhists don't agree. There is no becoming anything for a Buddhist. There is no conceptless ground of experience that subsumes all equally.

Isn't there something to attain though? The essence of enlightenment? As one refuge verse starts, "From now until I attain the essence of enlightenment ...". There's also an aspiration prayer that ends with the wish for beings of the six realms to "Attain all together the ground of primordial perfection." So there seems to be a subtle but crucial difference in attaining something as opposed to becoming something?

 

Can this 'ground of primordial perfection' ever be satisfactorily described without the describer's tradition claiming sole access to it?

 

Later Edit: replaced 'defined' with 'described' in the last and largely rhetorical question.

Edited May 31, 2009 by rex

[Vajrahridaya]

Isn't there something to attain though? The essence of enlightenment? As one refuge verse starts, "From now until I attain the essence of enlightenment ...". There's also an aspiration prayer that ends with the wish for beings of the six realms to "Attain all together the ground of primordial perfection." So there seems to be a subtle but crucial difference in attaining something as opposed to becoming something?

 

Can this 'ground of primordial perfection' ever be satisfactorily described without the describer's tradition claiming sole access to it?

 

Later Edit: replaced 'defined' with 'described' in the last and largely rhetorical question.

 

The sole difference is the way it is handled in the subconscious mind. These are poetic terms, also english translations. So the clarity in the actual meaning does need to be ascertained by going back to the Pali Suttas. One cannot read Vajrayana and Mahayana, much less Dzogchen which on first glance looks like Advaita Vedanta, without first understanding the Pali Suttas. That's very serious if one wants to know the meaning. One will not attain realization just sitting in a cave meditating without proper guidance, unless one has already become a stream enterer in a previous life, but these guys still find guidance as an example and to clarify the meaning because stream entry is still not enlightenment. Otherwise, one reifies which is a Samsaric habit, even on a deep subconscious level. This habit of ours is beginning-less... very tenacious.

 

The primordial ground is merely the ground of realization of the empty nature of all phenomena and non-phenomena. Nothing is really attained, Advaita says this too, because they deem all things to be subsumed by Brahman always. But in Buddhism, there is careful handling and utter clarity, not just... reify a conceptual-less ground of being that all is a part of. No, the Primordial ground is merely the fact that all levels of Samsara and Nirvana are always inherently without self essence. Also, even after enlightenment, you don't merge with the cosmos, your awareness just permeates everything because everything turns translucent, or transparent illumined by awareness endlessly, so one is able to ascertain at that point the secret meaning of everything within the context of dependent origination, because that's just how things work, both Nirvana and Samsara, it's not really a framework, not really a concept, but a concept killer, it empties all levels of reification, there is no ground of all being that is an ultimate truth, even dependent origination is not an ultimate truth, thus not even emptiness is an ultimate truth. That has been said since the very beginning. The Buddha said that Brahman is a mistaken interpretation of meditation experience in the Jhanas, which he practiced with Upanishadic yogis and found that they only led to future absorption and recycling after the end of this particular universe. Only Buddhism talks like this. Advaita Vedanta never talks about having a mind stream last beyond the re-absorption of a universe, at the end of the universe Theists and Monists merge with Brahman/Shiva, whatever. Any attempt to reconcile that is a later attempt due to Buddhist influence. Advaita Vedanta really is kind of a new invention, because before that, Samkhya was slightly dualistic. Even any of the good clear Upanishads are post Buddha, if not all of them, there is argument about this.

 

Also Buddhism is the only path that talks about individually infinite mind streams that have NO SOURCE at all what-so-ever. Only Buddhism talks about beginning-less-ness. Hinduism has always talked about Brahman being a primal source, becoming Gods and all other beings and things, but these gods recede back into Brahman after many kalpas, because even the Gods, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, probably until the Buddha taught them a thing or two, taught limited paths, called by the Buddha, eternalism.

 

Buddhas are the teachers of the Gods.

 

One never reifies an ultimate in Buddhism, even in realization, otherwise the realization would not be the middle way.

 

The differences have been laid out quite clearly by Xabir in the Advaita Buddhism thread. He recently quoted some very clear talks on the subject that do a better job than I can do in clarifying the middle path.

 

No matter what anyone tries to say, Advaita's realization is reified eternalism, it's an extreme. Buddhism is neither nihilism, nor eternalism.

 

There is eternity, but only because the flow of interdependency keeps going...

 

Not even Buddhas are one with each other, their mind streams are individual, but they are one in the qualities of enlightenment, compassion, bliss, freedom from proliferation, freedom from concepts, and freedom from non-concepts, freedom from a ground of being, freedom from minds expressions and mind streams as well. Total freedom, not trapped in a secret "can't talk about it", ground of being that constantly recycles the universe. To Buddhism, Brahman is samsaric experience.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Tao99]

A quote from Dwai on another thread relevant to this one:

 

As a matter of fact, Hindus are perhaps the only collective group of people who consider all sincere ways to liberation as valid (some are easier, some are harder) and don't make any claims to exclusivity (which automatically reflects the fears and insecurity and/or stupidity of the system that makes such claims).

 

Very Cool! And very interesting. I think that modern Taoism is in complete agreement. You will probably agree that even the easier/harder aspect is relative: Taoism might be easier for me but not you, Hinduism might be easier for you but not me. Raja may be easier for some then Jhana etc. and vice versa.

 

I tried to sum up this same idea as it stands for Taoists, and perhaps Hinduism and Taoism are on the same page:

 

"You go yours and we'll go ours, and on a shared planet all we need in common is good will and compassion."

 

Beneath this there will be different techniques, views, metaphysics, ontologies, self knowledge, self awareness etc., but they are always beneath this, for human beings and their ways on a shared planet, just trying to get along.

 

To Vajrahridaya and xabir2005: OK! we get it, enough beating us over the head with it until we submit.

 

We get your no source/no self/no substance knowledge and your no source/no self/no substance awareness - your 'mystic experience'. You can stop repeating yourself now.

 

And we have our polar opposite 'indestructible diamond body' mystic experience, just as direct and obvious to us, as apparently yours is to you. You can't diminish our personal mystic experience by your words and brow beating, and we can't and don't even try to diminish yours. We know these are just pointer views and knowledge, that neither side in fact can issue pronouncements about with Absolute Certainty like they are the grand poobah and pope of knowledge. All philosophers east and west are aware of this (see solipsism debate). This is how you come off here: as a very threatened, person attacking, obnoxious buddhist. So show some humanity and humble humility, the more you speak so smugly here, the more I lose respect for budism. That's the irony you are not seeing.

 

If all the Buddhas have to tell the Gods and Taoist immortals is your non-stop 'mystic experience' point, I assure you they are laughing hysterically. But you probably don't get it.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Tao99

[xabir2005]

 

To Vajrahridaya and xabir2005: OK! we get it, enough beating us over the head with it until we submit.

 

We get your no source/no self/no substance knowledge and your no source/no self/no substance awareness - your 'mystic experience'. You can stop repeating yourself now.

If you get it, good. Not all do. If they have mistaken understanding about the Buddhist teachings, I will continue to post and correct them.

 

As I said to someone in the other thread earlier on:

 

Different, yes. But I just don't want to make the whole debate about who is better, which is pretty pointless. The purpose of my posting is just for people to have a better understanding of the teaching of Anatta (no-self) and Shunyata (emptiness), that's all.

 

If you disagree, and refuse to read what I wrote, I don't mind and see no point to convince you. I did not set up threads to convert people to Buddhism or something like that, nor do I reply with the intention of claiming that Buddhism is superior -- but simply to point out Anatta and Shunyata and clear misconceptions. My replies simply arise out of specific causes and conditions and is in reponse to the posts and questions posed by other people. Though you find it laughable, others might find it appropriate. I am sorry that some may have found my posts to be offensive, and I certainly am not a skillful writer.

[xabir2005]

Anyway in Buddhism we also talk about the unborn and unceasing Dharmakaya -- just not in the same way as an ontological essence.

[Vajrahridaya]

Ooops, double post.

 

Disapearing posts. How fun!! Magic show!

 

Anyway, the offended make more violence than the offender.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

A quote from Dwai on another thread relevant to this one:

Very Cool! And very interesting. I think that modern Taoism is in complete agreement. You will probably agree that even the easier/harder aspect is relative: Taoism might be easier for me but not you, Hinduism might be easier for you but not me. Raja may be easier for some then Jhana etc. and vice versa.

 

I tried to sum up this same idea as it stands for Taoists, and perhaps Hinduism and Taoism are on the same page:

 

"You go yours and we'll go ours, and on a shared planet all we need in common is good will and compassion."

 

Beneath this there will be different techniques, views, metaphysics, ontologies, self knowledge, self awareness etc., but they are always beneath this, for human beings and their ways on a shared planet, just trying to get along.

 

To Vajrahridaya and xabir2005: OK! we get it, enough beating us over the head with it until we submit.

 

We get your no source/no self/no substance knowledge and your no source/no self/no substance awareness - your 'mystic experience'. You can stop repeating yourself now.

 

And we have our polar opposite 'indestructible diamond body' mystic experience, just as direct and obvious to us, as apparently yours is to you. You can't diminish our personal mystic experience by your words and brow beating, and we can't and don't even try to diminish yours. We know these are just pointer views and knowledge, that neither side in fact can issue pronouncements about with Absolute Certainty like they are the grand poobah and pope of knowledge. All philosophers east and west are aware of this (see solipsism debate). This is how you come off here: as a very threatened, person attacking, obnoxious buddhist. So show some humanity and humble humility, the more you speak so smugly here, the more I lose respect for budism. That's the irony you are not seeing.

 

If all the Buddhas have to tell the Gods and Taoist immortals is your non-stop 'mystic experience' point, I assure you they are laughing hysterically. But you probably don't get it.

 

Seems like Taoists and Vedantins are allowed to discard the framework. Instead of looking at the finger that points to the moon, we have the capability to see the moon in all it's beauty.

 

It took me 20+ pages of mayhem to *really* understand what Lao Tzu said about Tao. It cannot be described. If an attempt is made to describe it, it really is not the real Tao. Since we as subjects will always try to superimpose our categorical framework onto the Tao. It can only be experienced.