Buddhism transcends the Tao

[ralis]

Everyone always wants to appeal to the higher cause, religious doctrine, authority or whatever to prove their own point of view. Buddhism, no matter how it is perceived or framed, is just another authoritarian belief system. It is a nihilistic view at best and offers no real answers to life's problems.

 

I have provided a link to the problem of authoritarianism. http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/docs...horitarians.pdf

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I used to think like you guys.

 

Have fun with it. I know it feels good.

[ralis]

I used to think like you guys.

 

Have fun with it. I know it feels good.

 

I guess your thinking and or view is superior? What about your little 7 line verse at the bottom. Have you achieved the removal of all obstacles? If not , then why? At what point are the obstacles guaranteed to be removed, absolutely. If Padmasambhava's obstacles are completely removed, then he must not exist anymore. If that is the case then why do you rely on a nonexistent being?

 

 

ralis

Edited May 31, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

If Padmasambhava's obstacles are completely removed, then he must not exist anymore. If that is the case then why do you rely on a nonexistent being?

ralis

 

Where do you get this idea that when one's obstacles are removed that one does not exist anymore?

 

Through countless eons Padmasambhava traveled the many paths of virtue and built up an endless reservoir of the heaps of virtues to continue to manifest through after enlightenment, until all beings in all directions are liberated. Which never happens, so he never disappears. He may not have a 3 dimensional body anymore, just the Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya, but he can manifest a Nirmanakaya through his merits in any realm, and does so. Who knows, he could be that dude buying fruit at the store next to you?

 

 

To clarify. There is no such thing as non-existing. There is never a time that you will not, exist from a relative point of view. Your D.O. will continue always, either experienced as nirvana or samsara. D.O. is non-stop, non-beginning.

[forestofclarity]

The difference between a talker and a walker is clear. The fact that you don't seem to realize your posts are garbage show what you do and do not know about the viewless view.

 

But then, it doesn't really matter, does it? All the world is a bodhimandala leading us to awakening, in our own time, in our own way.

 

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.

[Vajrahridaya]

The difference between a talker and a walker is clear. The fact that you don't seem to realize your posts are garbage show what you do and do not know about the viewless view.

 

But then, it doesn't really matter, does it? All the world is a bodhimandala leading us to awakening, in our own time, in our own way.

 

 

Ad-hom's Ad-hom's Ad-hom's... all reflections of insecurity.

[rex]

The sole difference is the way it is handled in the subconscious mind. These are poetic terms, also english ...

Thanks Hari, your post leaves me much to ponder, clarify and research.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks Hari, your post leaves me much to ponder, clarify and research.

 

Oh Joy! I'm not wasting my time! YAY!!

[Vajrahridaya]

Have you achieved the removal of all obstacles? If not , then why? At what point are the obstacles guaranteed to be removed, absolutely.

 

Sorry, I kind of skipped over this question. No... I have not removed all my obstacles. But, I have had many, many glimpses as to what that's like, to whatever degree I was able to glimpse or another.

 

One of my obstacles seems to be, how to not be stressed out in front of the computer. It feels like this bombardment of really dense and sticky energy from T.V. screens and Computer screens, I don't know how to integrate that too well, except sometimes.

 

The point that all obstacles are removed can be elucidated by this poem.

 

Nagarjuna's Mahamudra Vision

 

 

Homage to Manjusrikumarabhuta!

 

1. I bow down to the all-powerful Buddha

Whose mind is free of attachment,

Who in his compassion and wisdom

Has taught the inexpressible.

 

2. In truth there is no birth -

Then surely no cessation or liberation;

The Buddha is like the sky

And all beings have that nature.

 

3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist,

But all is a complex continuum

With an intrinsic face of non-inherent existence,

The object of ultimately clear awareness.

 

4. The nature of all things

Appears like a reflection,

Pure and naturally quiescent,

With a non-dual quality of suchness.

 

5. The common mind imagines a self

Where there is nothing at all,

And it conceives of emotional states -

Happiness, suffering, and equanimity.

 

6. The six states of being in Samsara,

The happiness of heaven,

The suffering of hell,

Are all false creations, figments of mind.

 

7. Likewise the ideas of bad action causing suffering,

Old age, disease and death,

And the idea that virtue leads to happiness,

Are mere ideas, unreal notions.

 

8. Like an artist frightened

By the devil he paints,

The sufferer in Samsara

Is terrified by his own imagination.

 

9. Like a man caught in quicksands

Thrashing and struggling about,

So beings drown

In the mess of their own thoughts.

 

10. Mistaking fantasy for reality

Causes an experience of suffering;

Mind is poisoned by interpretation

Of consciousness of form.

 

11. Dissolving figment and fantasy

With a mind of compassionate insight,

Remain in perfect awareness

In order to help all beings.

 

12. So acquiring conventional virtue

Freed from the web of discursive thought,

Insurpassable understanding is gained

As Buddha, friend to the world.

 

13. Knowing the relativity of all,

The ultimate truth is always seen;

Dismissing the idea of beginning, middle and end

The flow is seen as Emptiness (non-abiding).

 

14. So all samsara and nirvana is seen as it is -

Empty and insubstantial,

Naked and changeless,

Eternally quiescent and illumined.

 

15. As the figments of a dream

Dissolve upon waking,

So the confusion of Samsara

Fades away in enlightenment.

 

16. Idealising things of no substance

As eternal, substantial and satisfying,

Shrouding them in a fog of desire

The round of existence arises.

 

17. The nature of beings is unborn

Yet commonly beings are conceived to exist;

Both beings and their ideas

Are false beliefs.

 

18. It is nothing but an artifice of mind

This birth into an illusory becoming,

Into a world of good and evil action

With good or bad rebirth to follow.

 

19. When the wheel of mind ceases to turn

All things come to an end.

So there is nothing inherently substantial

And all things are utterly pure.

 

20. This great ocean of samsara,

Full of delusive thought,

Can be crossed in the boat Universal Approach (Buddhadharma).

Who can reach the other side without it?

 

The Twenty Mahayana Verses, (in Sanskrit,

Mahayanavimsaka; in Tibetan: Theg pa chen po nyi

shu pa) were composed by the master Nagarjuna.

 

May All Beings Be Happy!

[adam mizner]

well said

i would recommend study of the pali canon to anyone who wishes for unbinding.

 

metta

adam

 

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.

[Vajrahridaya]

It's true that there are many overlaps in the different spiritual traditions on this small planet...

 

But, Buddhism has a specific that is not found anywhere else. Not all schools of Buddhism fully elucidate the proper understanding of this major unique difference that makes Buddha's teachings supreme either, due to other influences. That unique teaching and truth is dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda in Sanskrit or Paticcasamuppāda in Pali). Which is the complete pacification of views.

 

Taoists almost have it, but they reify the flow of dependent origination. By calling it Tao and trying to be consciously one with it, calling it and experiencing it as supreme reality (as beyond speech or concepts as it may seem to be) creates a subtle seed of density in the mind stream that lies beyond concepts in the consciousness. This acts as an anchor. Thereby it's not the proper liberating view of dependent origination, or mutual co-arising that unbinds one from suffering eternally.

 

It still only leads to long lived bliss realms of great spiritual power. Not bad, very good indeed and beautiful, but not total freedom from Samsara.

 

[Unconditioned]

Complete pacification of views.

 

Very well said, traditions aside, that is the truth of the matter. The concept of no-concepts needs to be let go of too. The concepts of dependent origination, emptiness, void, truth, Tao, reality, all pointers that need to be let go of.

 

However, one size doesn't fit all. There are many people from many paths that have reached the same 'conclusion'. So while I agree with the Buddha's teaching I don't agree that his method is the only one that works. So I believe that to say his teachings are THE Supreme teaching is a matter of opinion.

 

I can use a hammer, a screw, or a nail to hold a board in place. The end result is the same but then we start discussing that a threaded screw is more secure than a thin nail and that doesn't help keep the board in place.

 

A rough analogy that will likely be pulled apart (proving my point) but it's close enough

[Vajrahridaya]

Very well said, traditions aside, that is the truth of the matter. The concept of no-concepts needs to be let go of too. The concepts of dependent origination, emptiness, void, truth, Tao, reality, all pointers that need to be let go of.

 

However, one size doesn't fit all. There are many people from many paths that have reached the same 'conclusion'. So while I agree with the Buddha's teaching I don't agree that his method is the only one that works. So I believe that to say his teachings are THE Supreme teaching is a matter of opinion.

 

I can use a hammer, a screw, or a nail to hold a board in place. The end result is the same but then we start discussing that a threaded screw is more secure than a thin nail and that doesn't help keep the board in place.

 

A rough analogy that will likely be pulled apart (proving my point) but it's close enough

 

that's the thing, dependent origination is the threaded screw that keeps one's blissful state in place. Because the blissful liberation is not based on an eternal identity, it's based on seeing dependent origination which is defined uniquely in Buddhism and found no where else. In other traditions, a beyond concept ground that permeates everything equally in a non-dual way is the beginning of a being, that the being is superimposed over as an illusional and false identity.

 

I do disagree, the experience of states called liberation by the different traditions are different. If this was not so, then the Buddha would not have said that his path was unique from other paths. But he did say this.

 

We are all free to have our opinion of course, but this is a discussion board. It's not an opinion that the Buddha was recorded as having said thus. Though, one can think that the recording was wrong, which seems to be many peoples argument here. But the experience can be found within.

 

Edited June 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Ramon25]

what a freaking mind trip! do you realize how in your head this whole conversation is? Guys stop thinking so much about this. It has been said "no size fits all" Need anything more be said? I mean Really?

All the best

[Josh Young]

. 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?

 

Buddha was the saint of the Sankyas, this was a preexisting dicipline with specific works including the Srimadbhagavatam. This is the reason for him being called Sakyamuni.

 

There are many teachings attributed to Buddha, are they all correct?

 

The essence of the Diamond Sutra is no different than that of Tao.

The essence of dhamapada contains no thing not found in Tao.

The vedas contain the same teachings.

 

Have people not noticed that the Tao De Jing is a sutra? Have they not noticed this structure form is the same as that of the vedas?

 

Do people forget the symbols?

The Chakram, the Dharma wheel, the bagua, they are one and not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

How many roads to truth must providence provide, that we will embark upon one of them?

 

Only one for each of us, no more no less.

Must it all be put in identical terms?

In the same language?

 

How then will it reach the people?

It can only be one at a time.

 

Why then, do we seek to tell others about our own path?

What allegiances must we have?

To an organization? So that only those who belong may find the way?

 

What utter nonsense.

 

 

 

 

By calling it Tao and trying to be consciously one with it, calling it and experiencing it as supreme reality

 

But tao is without name and without quality or property.

It cannot be sought after nor can it be avoided.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Josh Young

[Josh Young]

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.

 

If you read the scriptures you will note that Brahman is without origin or end. This is beginning-less-ness.

 

If you read the scripture you will note Tao is without origin or end. This again is beginning-less-ness.

 

To understand you must become familiar with the works, even if through translation. Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, these are not names, they are meanings, those who speak of them as utterly distinct do not know them.

 

There is no time, only the illusion/experience of it, this truth is self evident for those who know how to look, and it is found in Tao, Veda and Sankya traditions.

 

There is no self, only the illusion/experience of it, this truth is self evident for those who know how to look, and it is found in the Tao, Veda and Sankya traditions.

 

 

Even science says that all is energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Where then can an origin be? Where can an end be had?

There is no line between one moment and the next, where can eternity be when there has always been and can only be now?

 

Can you say the name of god and mean it?

[forestofclarity]

When there is no self that can be attacked

Then what feels attacked cannot be the self

Let go of this and be free

 

 

Ad-hom's Ad-hom's Ad-hom's... all reflections of insecurity.

[Vajrahridaya]

But tao is without name and without quality or property.

It cannot be sought after nor can it be avoided.

 

Beyond name and form but experientially reified. Still a subtle it that all things are.

 

Buddhist realization is still subtler.

 

 

If you read the scriptures you will note that Brahman is without origin or end. This is beginning-less-ness.

 

If you read the scripture you will note Tao is without origin or end. This again is beginning-less-ness.

 

 

No, that's eternalism. A Self existing eternal Self of all.

 

D.O. is beginningless and endless but only in a relative sense, not in an ultimate sense.

 

Buddhahood is a realization, not a substratum.

 

Still different realization.

 

When there is no self that can be attacked

Then what feels attacked cannot be the self

Let go of this and be free

 

Very good! Hi!

[Sunya]

Buddha was the saint of the Sankyas, this was a preexisting dicipline with specific works including the Srimadbhagavatam. This is the reason for him being called Sakyamuni.

 

 

Negative. Buddha was called Sakyamuni which means Sage of Sakya, referring to the particular Sakya kingdom that he was born into.

 

Srimadbhagavatam has nothing to do with Buddhist teachings as its a dualistic teaching centered on Bhakti worship of Vishnu and Krishna.

 

maybe you are thinking of Samkhya which was a dualistic school existing at the time.

 

 

 

There are many teachings attributed to Buddha, are they all correct?

 

The essence of the Diamond Sutra is no different than that of Tao.

The essence of dhamapada contains no thing not found in Tao.

The vedas contain the same teachings.

 

 

maybe you should browse the Advaita and Buddhism thread, as all of this has been discussed thoroughly.

Edited June 2, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddha was the saint of the Sankyas, this was a preexisting dicipline with specific works including the Srimadbhagavatam. This is the reason for him being called Sakyamuni.

 

You should read more Pali Suttas. Yes, clan of the Shakya's, but his teachings had not much to do with the Srimadbhagavatam, which I've read.

 

Have people not noticed that the Tao De Jing is a sutra? Have they not noticed this structure form is the same as that of the vedas?

 

The Buddha scrutinized and criticized the Vedas intensely and never bowed down to them as a supreme teaching. He felt they were Samsaric teachings. Teachings on the recycling of Samsara, not the teachings on the liberation from Samsara.

 

The other stuff seems cool, but your reading into things without the education of the Pali Suttas.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Everyone wants to hide behind the non-conceptual view it seems and not investigate deeper?

 

Like I said, the Buddha said that Karma penetrates into the non-conceptual experience.

 

I have found this to be true, because once I realized this, a whole other universe of karmas manifested through the light of investigation, directly out of the formless non-conceptual realms of my own infinite mind stream.

 

Man! I thought I was sooo close too... then I realized that I was just hiding a seed for a new ignorant manifestation in the next universe. This seed en-lodges very deep and just continues to reify, reify, reify from the non-conceptual ground of reality... so subtle attachment keeps saying. The cause of Theist and Monist interpretations.

 

All eternalist views...

 

All Samsaric!

 

Not the middle way of Buddhadharma.

 

Buddhadharma means... "The way of awakening"

 

"The way" is just naming the Samsaric flow and doesn't necessarily fully dismantle it for oneself.

[Sunya]

Everyone wants to hide behind the non-conceptual view it seems and not investigate deeper?

 

Like I said, the Buddha said that Karma penetrates into the non-conceptual experience.

 

I posted this elsewhere but feel that its important to post here as well..

 

I understand that on this forum, there is a big mass conceptual agreement that method is everything and view doesn't matter, or rather one should forget about view and simply surrender (to your latent karmas) and somehow you'll realize truth. but really, this is not how the Buddhists teach things since method is not the proper seed for the fruition of awakening,

 

Yogic method is like suping up your car: put in a killer engine with a turbo kit, some nos tanks, fancy seats, the works. as fast as that bad boy is, you're still driving blind because you forgot to clean your windshield

[Uncle Screwtape]

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited June 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Josh Young]

Where is the line between eternalism and the teachings of buddha?