Buddhism transcends the Tao

[Buddhayo]

I will say this just one more time: it is given a name for the benefit of discussion. In the experience (and I use the word 'experience' because I am forced to use words on the Internet) there is no naming, no thinking, no . . . nothing. There is no reification or clinging or attachment, not even a subtle one. That's the point.

 

(I apologise for all the emphasis but it seems to be needed.)

 

Yes, but still seems to be an independent source, a subtle essence, etc.

 

Is the Tao dependent?

 

 

P.S. Regarding your question above....... does view exist regardless of your realization of it?

 

Are you talking about Right View or just any view?

 

My non-realization of the Right View is based on the fact that I have realization of the Wrong View. So, since there are no eternal moments of consciousness, for a practitioner, this can oscillate depending upon causes and conditions of how well I'm keeping the view through making the right links, based on previously making the right links add infinitum.

 

But... Right view always exists because there are always Buddhas in one universe or another who's consciousness has uncompounded and shines all around, regardless of my recognition of his or her liberated qualities.

 

Thanks Meson for your insight! It's much appreciated.

 

 

 

The title of the topic makes sense, only if you define TAO as something that can be transcended.

Most of us don't see it this way.

Hence no point to discuss.

 

As for Buddhism - a lovely view: http://home.att.net/~meditation/Buddhism.html

 

Na mo Amituofo!

 

The thing is, is that the Tao is always discussed as The flow, or, "That" which cannot be named, etc.

 

It's seems to be a self existent that all is and wouldn't hold up to Buddha's scrutiny. Nirvana in Buddhism is a realization, not a ground of being that is both transcendent as beyond words and eminent that all things are merely formations of. Making it a non-dual oneness. Neither static, nor dynamic, but both and simultaneous. Basically, Monism.

 

 

 

 

It may be a problem for you, but not for me, nor for others I know. Not least of all because it is not to me 'vague poetry' but perfectly clear.

 

But how do I know where to go? That's the point. Ultimately, there is nowhere to go. I say 'ultimately' because there is a lot to do before then for me. I am more than happy to follow sign posts for now.

 

I like you Uncle.

[evZENy]

The thing is, is that the Tao is always discussed as The flow, or, "That" which cannot be named, etc.

 

That's the problem of those who have decided to discuss the undiscussable using their concepts :-)

 

I am still amazed how attached to concepts and words are some people (including in the forum here), while following the path of detachment ! :-)

[Uncle Screwtape]

I am still amazed how attached to concepts and words are some people (including in the forum here), while following the path of detachment ! :-)

 

I know how it can seem, but mostly, concepts and words are just tools we use on the path of cultivation. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but it is something I have found to be generally true.

[Buddhayo]

That's the problem of those who have decided to discuss the undiscussable using their concepts :-)

 

I am still amazed how attached to concepts and words are some people (including in the forum here), while following the path of detachment ! :-)

 

Your not understanding that beyond concepts is a reification of an existent in the mind stream that causes and anchoring and a seed, a non-conceptual seed that is sooo subtle.

 

It has nothing to do with concepts, it has to do with the experience being pointed to through the symbols.

 

There is attachment to this... "beyond concepts". Which Buddhism never makes the mistake of doing, except a bit in Zen I think.

 

The non-conceptual is not enlightenment for that is dependent. There is no attachment to concepts, and no attachment to non-concepts, or beyond concepts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know how it can seem, but mostly, concepts and words are just tools we use on the path of cultivation. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but it is something I have found to be generally true.

 

There must be full integration of all aspects of being from formless to form with the realization, they must be mutually reflective in a seamless fashion.

 

Of course, if we could all just gather chairs, sit around and stare at each other and transmit our realization to each other through imagery and color patterns... that'd be pretty cool. But... alas... here we are, staring at a computer screen and the only way it seems we know how to communicate the subtleties of spiritual truths is through this dense word format. Both non-conceptual and conceptual are equally empty of inherent existence and without abiding nature.

[evZENy]

I know how it can seem, but mostly, concepts and words are just tools we use on the path of cultivation.

True, true...

I use tools to change the tubes on my bike. Then I enjoy the ride.

If someone asks me how did I enjoy the biking I don't explain the tools I used :-)

And while I bike I enjoy the experience, not the bike :-) [got in so much mud last Sunday - real, non-dualistic one. Loved it! :-)]

[Uncle Screwtape]

Yes, but still seems to be an independent source, a subtle essence, etc.

 

Is the Tao dependent?

 

Independent of what? Of us? Taoism is a co-creative system as far as I am aware and we as humans are of Tao but play a role in its processes. Think of the Five Phases. Each phase or 'element', interacts with every other according to its nature and this interaction sets a direction of change.

 

Ultimately, there is no one thing that is independent of any other.

 

But we have to be careful here. We mustn't confuse ourselves by applying principles of one of the three realms to the reality of another. It's like when someone says that free will is an illusion because we live a deterministic existence. That refers only to the lower three realms of people, events and things whereas our inate creative freedom belongs to the upper three realms of space, time and the universe.

 

There are many subtle levels within Taoist thought and the idea of oneness should not be mistaken as a denial of the individual self. I know it seems paradoxical but it really isn't. Usually, at least as far as Taoism is concerned, what is called a paradox is just a knot in our understanding that has yet to be untied.

[evZENy]

not understanding

reification of an existent

mind stream

anchoring

non-conceptual seed

symbols

full integration

aspects

formless

realization

mutually reflective

seamless fashion

equally empty

inherent existence

abiding nature

[Buddhayo]

Independent of what? Of us? Taoism is a co-creative system as far as I am aware and we as humans are of Tao but play a role in its processes. Think of the Five Phases. Each phase or 'element', interacts with every other according to its nature and this interaction sets a direction of change.

 

Ultimately, there is no one thing that is independent of any other.

 

But we have to be careful here. We mustn't confuse ourselves by applying principles of one of the three realms to the reality of another. It's like when someone says that free will is an illusion because we live a deterministic existence. That refers only to the lower three realms of people, events and things whereas our inate creative freedom belongs to the upper three realms of space, time and the universe.

 

There are many subtle levels within Taoist thought and the idea of oneness should not be mistaken as a denial of the individual self. I know it seems paradoxical but it really isn't. Usually, at least as far as Taoism is concerned, what is called a paradox is just a knot in our understanding that has yet to be untied.

 

Hmmm! this is a good description and gives credence to possibly how much Taism is influenced by Buddhism. Which I have no problem with.

 

Maybe you guys do attain Buddhahood?

[Uncle Screwtape]

There must be full integration of all aspects of being from formless to form with the realization, they must be mutually reflective in a seamless fashion.

 

I do agree. Integration is the key. I actually believe that the skilfull use of words is a very highly refined Taoist art. Good Taoist writing and art uses the subtle suggestion of mystery in a truly masterful way. Every stroke of an artist's or calligrapher's brush forms a frame for silence and stillness. Take a look at a classical Chinese painting and you'll see mountain ranges and landscapes and rivers emerging from nothingness always giving the suggestion of impermanence. I think texts like the TTC and the I Ching achieve similar feats: the integration of form and formlessness.

[Buddhayo]

not understanding

reification of an existent

mind stream

anchoring

non-conceptual seed

symbols

full integration

aspects

formless

realization

mutually reflective

seamless fashion

equally empty

inherent existence

abiding nature

 

I applaud your cleverness evZENy...

[Uncle Screwtape]

Hmmm! this is a good description and gives credence to possibly how much Taism is influenced by Buddhism. Which I have no problem with.

 

I am very aware of how Buddhism has influenced Taoism and I think it's great. But what I described is very, very, very old Taoism. In fact, it is arguably among the very foundations upon which what we came to know as Taoism emerged. At least in this case, any similarity with Buddhism is coincidental.

[Buddhayo]

I do agree. Integration is the key. I actually believe that the skilfull use of words is a very highly refined Taoist art. Good Taoist writing and art uses the subtle suggestion of mystery in a truly masterful way. Every stroke of an artist's or calligrapher's brush forms a frame for silence and stillness. Take a look at a classical Chinese painting and you'll see mountain ranges and landscapes and rivers emerging from nothingness always giving the suggestion of impermanence. I think texts like the TTC and the I Ching achieve similar feats: the integration of form and formlessness.

 

Actually yes, the I-Ching is said to be very, very old.

 

I do so love the I-Ching... I find great wisdom through it's words...

 

I'm due another throw in fact with my girlfriend having moved in just a few days ago.

 

 

 

I am very aware of how Buddhism has influenced Taoism and I think it's great. But what I described is very, very, very old Taoism. In fact, it is arguably among the very foundations upon which what we came to know as Taoism emerged. At least in this case, any similarity with Buddhism is coincidental.

 

Yes, could be. Your description of the Tao as just being an endless sideways flow of co-emergent phenomina, which means that even formless states of consciousness are also inherently without self as well but mutually dependent upon other causes and conditions. That concept-less-ness is dependent on the fact of concepts or forms and etc.

 

Eh, I'm quite satisfied with your last explanation that there is more to the Tao being a name for dependent origination than I thought.

 

I started thinking, duh it's in the symbol of Yin and Yang, being mutually dependent by showing that each is also in the other.

 

I just always interpreted this as a subtle samkhya where there is a subtle but intermingling dualism between matter and spirit.

 

But, if there is co-emergence in it's systematic break down, making Tao nothing at all really, but a word to describe the endless process of mutually relatedness... Then emptiness might truly be understood, not as an abiding nature, but merely a quality of all experiencing.

 

This is a revelation for me! Thank you all for this wonderful argument!! I'm happy!!

[Sunya]

True, true...

I use tools to change the tubes on my bike. Then I enjoy the ride.

If someone asks me how did I enjoy the biking I don't explain the tools I used :-)

And while I bike I enjoy the experience, not the bike :-) [got in so much mud last Sunday - real, non-dualistic one. Loved it! :-)]

 

 

I know how it can seem, but mostly, concepts and words are just tools we use on the path of cultivation. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but it is something I have found to be generally true.

 

you are assuming that all tools only fix 1 bike, what we are trying to say is that there are multiple bikes, the bike is actually dependent upon the specific tool (or view)

 

 

I am very aware of how Buddhism has influenced Taoism and I think it's great. But what I described is very, very, very old Taoism. In fact, it is arguably among the very foundations upon which what we came to know as Taoism emerged. At least in this case, any similarity with Buddhism is coincidental.

 

I've never found anything remotely close to Buddhism in Taoist thought prior to Buddhist inception into China, not wanting to start a historical debate here, just stating my opinion.

 

 

Yes, could be. Your description of the Tao as just being an endless sideways flow of co-emergent phenomina, which means that even formless states of consciousness are also inherently without self as well but mutually dependent upon other causes and conditions. That concept-less-ness is dependent on the fact of concepts or forms and etc.

 

Eh, I'm quite satisfied with your last explanation that there is more to the Tao being a name for dependent origination than I thought.

 

 

could be, could be.

 

but how many Taoists come to this realization? we are talking about Taoism as a spiritual path, as a whole. most it seems only want to create an immortal spirit body which clearly shows grasping at a self and not understanding the impermanent nature of reality, and interdependence. others tend to think that the goal is to "merge with the Tao on all levels", i think this is the goal of Kunlun or something like that. none of these goals show understanding of what has been discussed here, so are these people not Taoists then? what defines a Taoist?

 

some here are clearly exceptions and do not seem overly attached to an eternalist concept of Tao, I applaud that

Edited June 3, 2009 by mikaelz

[Uncle Screwtape]

most it seems only want to create an immortal spirit body which clearly shows grasping at a self and not understanding the impermanent nature of reality, and interdependence.

 

I personally think it is exactly the opposite. Immortalism requires, as far as I understand it and I am willing to be corrected, an acceptance of the impermanent nature of reality and interdependence in that it is change which has to be harnessed and the illusiory nature of a separate self.

 

It does look like there is a lot of grasping and denial going on, but I have never read about someone who is said to be a Taoist immortal, or spoken to someone who is on the path of the immortal, who was did not work witht that and merge at all levels, as you put it. So I don't see the same difference you do here.

 

you are assuming that all tools only fix 1 bike, what we are trying to say is that there are multiple bikes, the bike is actually dependent upon the specific tool (or view)

 

I am assuming no such thing. In fact, I said that Taoism is a co-creative system. Wuji is the void of latent, infinite potential. It requires actualisation. That is what we do. The creative requires the receptive to complete it, to make it manifest. There can be no single bike. What I said about the Three Realms addresses that.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Uncle Screwtape

[Buddhayo]

Wuji is the void of latent, infinite potential. It requires actualisation. That is what we do. The creative requires the receptive to complete it, to make it manifest.

 

Emptiness is thought of in that way as well, as the quality of dependent origination/impermanence's infinite potentiality.

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

This is the biggest pile of garbage I've ever seen assembled in one place. The amount of nonsense is staggering here. I can't even bother to reply in detail anymore. Just keep doing what you're doing. If you hit the wall hard enough, eventually you'll be forced to realize there is a wall there that way.

[evZENy]

you are assuming that all tools only fix 1 bike, what we are trying to say is that there are multiple bikes, the bike is actually dependent upon the specific tool (or view)

 

Why do you say I assume that !?!? How do you read my words !?

Different bikes, need different tools!

Of course - we have 4 at home. Don't have to tell me :-)

And exactly because different bikes need different tools, Buddhism won't work for everyone! :-)

 

I am not interested in Taoism as religion.

I am interested in Tao, which as UncleS said, goes much further back in the dark/golden days...

 

For example, I followed a link from here today to a site that you pay money and you become Taoist.

That's not how I understand that word. as I am sure different Buddhist see themselves differently despite the same name.

Just names. Different labels. You don't pronoune Audi and VW as the Germans do. Symbols, names, concepts, words...

 

some here are clearly exceptions and do not seem overly attached to an eternalist concept of Tao, I applaud that

 

Of course - once applauds what one agrees with :-)

[Sunya]

Why do you say I assume that !?!? How do you read my words !?

Different bikes, need different tools!

Of course - we have 4 at home. Don't have to tell me :-)

And exactly because different bikes need different tools, Buddhism won't work for everyone! :-)

 

 

you're taking the metaphor too literally.. i said that to illustrate the point that not all religions (tools) lead to the same realization (bikes), i don't mean that the bikes are different as in.. different sizes, shapes, colors. thats taking the metaphor too literally. i meant that the bikes are completely different because of the tools used.

 

that metaphor sucks, forget it

 

it's more like, making food. the food is dependent upon the ingredients, the food is different. argh this metaphor sucks too because then its still food in the end and this does not illustrate that realization of nirvana and cessation of suffering are completely different fruits than any samsaric experience of formless unity and bliss, one is a permanent realization, the other is a temporary experience. nirvana is not a temporary experience

 

 

you saying "And exactly because different bikes need different tools, Buddhism won't work for everyone! :-)" clearly shows that you view Buddhism as just another tool to get to the same goal as every other religion when this whole thread, and the whole Advaita thread, is full of arguments against this. Buddhism will work for everyone who has the karma for it because its a universal path not dependent upon culture and ability. there are skillful means for people of all capabilities.

 

 

I view all other religions that have teachings on compassion to be Bodhisattva paths, you build up a lot of good merit and create conditions for your future enlightenment. all religions are good and rewarding. the point being argued is not that Buddhism is the "only way" and all the other religions take one to hell, or something. no not at all. it just depends on what your goal is, if you yearn for a formless unity with all, well Buddha taught that this is impermanent and does not lead to freedom. if you want to find out for yourself, that is your way, your path. no one will stop you. for many, Buddhism makes intuitive sense. for many, it doesn't, and that's okay. because of karma, it is obvious that Buddhism is not for everyone.

Edited June 3, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

you're taking the metaphor too literally.. i said that to illustrate the point that not all religions (tools) lead to the same realization (bikes), i don't mean that the bikes are different as in.. different sizes, shapes, colors. thats taking the metaphor too literally. i meant that the bikes are completely different because of the tools used.

 

that metaphor sucks, forget it

 

it's more like, making food. the food is dependent upon the ingredients, the food is different. argh this metaphor sucks too because then its still food in the end and this does not illustrate that realization of nirvana and cessation of suffering are completely different fruits than any samsaric experience of formless unity and bliss, one is a permanent realization, the other is a temporary experience. nirvana is not a temporary experience

you saying "And exactly because different bikes need different tools, Buddhism won't work for everyone! :-)" clearly shows that you view Buddhism as just another tool to get to the same goal as every other religion when this whole thread, and the whole Advaita thread, is full of arguments against this. Buddhism will work for everyone because its a universal path not dependent upon culture and ability. there are skillful means for people of all capabilities.

I view all other religions that have teachings on compassion to be Bodhisattva paths, you build up a lot of good merit and create conditions for your future enlightenment. all religions are good and rewarding. the point being argued is not that Buddhism is the "only way" and all the other religions take one to hell, or something. no not at all.

 

I think the question is, why should someone choose Buddhism over Taoism or Advaita Vedanta. None of these questions were answered on the Vedanta thread.

 

Buddhism is good but is just another way of inquiry. So are Taoism and Advaita Vedanta. It was not at all clearly demonstrated that Buddhism was better than either and none of the arguments that tried to show this were coherent. All we got were personal opinions by you and your reinforcement.

 

At the end of the day, Buddhism is just another method of Phenomenological inquiry, into something that is not a phenomenon.

[Sunya]

 

 

At the end of the day, Buddhism is just another method of Phenomenological inquiry, into something that is not a phenomenon.

 

there is nothing beyond phenomena. everything is phenomena. we can continue this in the new thread you started but I wanted to make this clear here, as this is the main argument that you don't understand about Buddhism

[dwai]

there is nothing beyond phenomena. everything is phenomena. we can continue this in the new thread you started but I wanted to make this clear here, as this is the main argument that you don't understand about Buddhism

 

No, the flaw is in your understanding I'm afraid. If you had any experiential knowledge, you wouldn't be saying what you do.

[Buddhayo]

No, the flaw is in your understanding I'm afraid. If you had any experiential knowledge, you wouldn't be saying what you do.

 

You are mistaking the conscious experience of the empty nature of things where consciousness expands past concepts, things and time as an eternal state of being. You are misunderstanding your experience. Which is the Buddhas big issue with Jhana without Vapassana, which is insight.

 

You have meditation, but not insight, which has everything to do with dependent origination, which you have yet to understand, no matter how many times it has been clarified.

 

You don't understand how much your experience is conditioned by your view.

[Sunya]

we are finally getting somewhere! after all the 20 pages of Brahman is Sunyata talk, we finally are coming to an understanding about the difference, and you do not agree. that is fine, but acknowledge the difference.

[Buddhayo]

 

At the end of the day, Buddhism is just another method of Phenomenological inquiry, into something that is not a phenomenon.

 

You are still holding the view that there is an eternal, beyond time, featureless consciousness that is behind everything, that is the true nature of everything.

 

That is a view... no matter how non-conceptual you experience this as. This is a flawed view according to the Buddha that just leads to a long lived bliss realm, or a formless realm.

 

You should study more Buddhism with a Buddhist master before you start to think you know what your talking about when it comes to Buddhism.

 

I know where your blocked, because I was blocked in that same way for quite some time and it took 2 years of debate and meditative experience before I finally realized the subtle difference that was all the difference between the edge of Samsara and the experience of Nirvana. Nirvana is not an existent, it's a realization of inter-dependent-origination, which has nothing to do with superimposition over a non-conceptual ground of all.

[dwai]

You are mistaking the conscious experience of the empty nature of things where consciousness expands past concepts, things and time as an eternal state of being. You are misunderstanding your experience. Which is the Buddhas big issue with Jhana without Vapassana, which is insight.

 

You have meditation, but not insight, which has everything to do with dependent origination, which you have yet to understand, no matter how many times it has been clarified.

 

You don't understand how much your experience is conditioned by your view.

I could say the same thing to you. In fact, in your case it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about categorical frameworks. You are caught in the web of DO.