Buddhism transcends the Tao

[Buddhayo]

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.

 

As has been explained to you. If you understood interdependent origination. You would realize that it is not really a framework, it's the pacification of all views. As well as the true way experiencing happens, both Samsaric and Nirvana.

 

You have not yet understood interdependent co-dependent reality, which is all there is.

 

You don't get Nagarjuna's logic at all.

 

You take up emptiness as a view, or a ground of being that truly exists beyond the ALL.

[dwai]

As has been explained to you. If you understood interdependent origination. You would realize that it is not really a framework, it's the pacification of all views. As well as the true way experiencing happens, both Samsaric and Nirvana.

 

You have not yet understood interdependent co-dependent reality, which is all there is.

 

You don't get Nagarjuna's logic at all.

 

You take up emptiness as a view, or a ground of being that truly exists beyond the ALL.

 

As has been explained to you, if you understood Dependent Origination, you wouldn't be saying what you do.

It is YOU who doesn't understand Nagarjuna I'm afraid, and you try to hide that ignorance behind countless words.

[Sunya]

an Advaitic who understands Nagarjuna better than a Buddhist, when Nagarjunin logic negates the existence of the ground that Advaita stands on.

[Buddhayo]

As has been explained to you, if you understood Dependent Origination, you wouldn't be saying what you do.

It is YOU who doesn't understand Nagarjuna I'm afraid, and you try to hide that ignorance behind countless words.

 

Nope, my understanding of Nagarjuna has been shown to be true by living Rinpoche's and a very good Loppon who's life is devoted to the study of Vajrayana and cultural context of it's history.

 

So... you as someone who reads Hinduism into everything, has been proven wrong. When my understanding is in agreement with living Buddhist masters who studied all of Nagarjuna very intensely and did retreats for years. Then no matter what you assume. We know that assumption is baseless verbal fiction.

[evZENy]

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),

 

Dude,

I made the methaphor - thank you for telling me how to take it :-)

The tools don't lead to bikes, the same way religions don't lead to realization.

The tools help you to ride the bike.

 

that metaphor sucks, forget it

 

I guess :-(

 

By the way - the methaphor came from the bike I ordered for my daughter and just arrived.

I don't like it and plan to return it back.

Don't get attached to the bike! If you don't enjoy riding it - change.

If you like it - don't convince everybody else it's the best one.

That's all!

[dwai]

Nope, my understanding of Nagarjuna has been shown to be true by living Rinpoche's and a very good Loppon who's life is devoted to the study of Vajrayana and cultural context of it's history.

 

So... you as someone who reads Hinduism into everything, has been proven wrong. When my understanding is in agreement with living Buddhist masters who studied all of Nagarjuna very intensely and did retreats for years. Then no matter what you assume. We know that assumption is baseless verbal fiction.

 

That is simply your opinion. I guess all those masters who studied Nagarjuna and told you the drivel that you're shoveling were wrong.

 

an Advaitic who understands Nagarjuna better than a Buddhist, when Nagarjunin logic negates the existence of the ground that Advaita stands on.

 

I only question your understanding of Nagarjuna. Just because you label yourselves Buddhist doesn't automatically sanctify every word you utter, even the utterly gibberish such as your arguments have been.

[xabir2005]

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

Is an intellectual comparison of Taoism and Buddhism really necessary when the goal of either side is to transcend and encapsulate intellectualism? These venerable traditions haven't fought in a thousand years, (since the 3rd Wu disaster if I'm not mistaken) but complemented each other's growth.

Edited June 4, 2009 by nac

[Sunya]

nac you said you're on E-Sangha, go on there and ask if the goals are the same. no Buddhist would agree with this

 

in this age of flatlanding and reducing traditions to their cultural differences, it is important to make distinctions

[xabir2005]

BTW just want to clarify I'm not trying to start a comparison between Taoism and Buddhism, and have said previously that me, my friend Thusness, my Buddhist Master, and many other ancient and modern Chinese Zen Masters and Tibetan Rinpoches consider Lao Tzu as enlightened.

 

However just like to clarify that the practice is different between the two traditions, and also, do not mistaken the state of nothingness as the realisation of no-self or emptiness. The insight is the realisation into the ever-present seal or nature of reality or no-self and the nature of awareness, it is not about a purest state. One who have experienced the 'state of nothingness' may want to look into the non-dual nature of awareness and no-self.

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

in this age of flatlanding and reducing traditions to their cultural differences, it is important to make distinctions

I disagree with the whole concept of religious debate. I think as long as we keep an open mind, we're all going to arrive at the truth or the closest approximation we can find, whatever it may be. So an open mind is the only religious ideal I seek to promote. I also disagree with the typical Tibetan Buddhist stance on E-Sangha. I've been active there since 08/2007, so I have a general idea of how they're going to react. I remember Namdrol saying Taoism may have developed from the fragmentary teachings of an ancient Buddha (Lao Tzu) and he keeps comparing it to Samkhya philosophy. Maybe they're mad at how Taoists have historically suggested that Buddhism is a "barbarian misunderstanding" of Taoism and they're trying to even the score.

[Uncle Screwtape]

Just to make clear: I wasn't comparing Taosm to Buddhism. I don't know enough about the latter to begin to even if I wanted to. I just felt there were some misconceptions flying around about Taoism and I wanted to clear them up.

 

I like Buddhism, though I think this feeling is rarely reciprocated.

[nac]

I like Buddhism, though I think this feeling is rarely reciprocated.

Not true. The louder voices are the easiest to hear. I heard the Sakya Trizin said that Taoism has everything Tibetan Buddhism has, except TB has a slightly stronger emphasis on compassion for suffering beings. His followers (like Namdrol) disagree.

Edited June 4, 2009 by nac

[Uncle Screwtape]

Not true. The louder voices are the easiest to hear.

 

Then I cheerful to be in the wrong on this one.

[Vajrahridaya]

I disagree with the whole concept of religious debate. I think as long as we keep an open mind, we're all going to arrive at the truth or the closest approximation we can find, whatever it may be. So an open mind is the only religious ideal I seek to promote. I also disagree with the typical Tibetan Buddhist stance on E-Sangha.

 

It's not on E-Sangha, it's actually most all of Buddhism that feels this way, even Theravada and Mahayana. Also the people on E-Sangha, many of them are highly educated and practiced with some doing some very intense retreats including Namdrol who did the long 3 year, 3 month, 3 day retreat in a traditional manor.

 

The Dalai Lama himself doesn't feel that all paths lead to the same place, though he believes in brotherly love and all getting alongism. He doesn't feel that all spiritual traditions lead to the same conclusions. Most that think that way think that ultimate truth is defined by a lack of concepts. Though Buddhism defines realization as liberated from all types of bondage, conceptual or non-conceptual as well. The final Truth of Buddhism is not equal to a high state of meditation either, which most paths feel that this is so and they just integrate this high state of meditation with their normal life and wala, enlightenment. Buddhism practices a certain kind of insight that is very specific and generally not found anywhere else, except maybe in Taoism at this point in it's evolution... I don't know for sure??

 

There is a fundamental difference in how liberation and truth is interpreted in Buddhism from other paths which leads to a different experience. It's not just a reductionist formula where one just de-constructs into the common denominator. That's not how Truth is found in Buddhism.

 

But yes, keep an open mind, but practice and experience for oneself the Truth's of Buddhist teaching. Experience is the same, but interpretation is all the difference between liberation and the edge of samsara.

 

Not true. The louder voices are the easiest to hear. I heard the Sakya Trizin said that Taoism has everything Tibetan Buddhism has, except TB has a slightly stronger emphasis on compassion for suffering beings. His followers (like Namdrol) disagree.

 

I'm almost in agreement with Sakya Trizin as I didn't know that the Tao was basically a formula for experiencing co-dependent origination to the degree that I just found out from Uncle. It seems that the Tao is not an abiding inherent nature, but just the nature of the non-abiding flow of things and consciousness. That would be quite in line with what Pratītyasamutpāda (co-dependent-arising) means and the experience it's comprehension leads to. I just don't know if nearly as much information is given to what one does with the state of enlightenment to help countless beings and stay in the state of non-abiding realization as is in the Mahayana/Vajrayana. Because in Buddhism, we stay enlightened throughout endless samsara by offering our merits to endless samsarins, due to the fact that there is no eternal self standing consciousness that persists throughout eternities unfoldment. Thereby we keep an action body without attachment to self identity but with consciousness of this for the rest of endless time originating dependent upon understanding directly Pratityasamutpada and applying consciousness to merit offering.

 

This is a real subtle point I think that doesn't exist in any other tradition on earth, as far as I know.

 

Though... yes, Lau Tzu could have been one of those really ancient pre-Buddha Buddha's that the Buddha talked about.

 

I am excited about what I've learned here about Taoism!! Glad I came!

[Uncle Screwtape]

I am excited about what I've learned here about Taoism!! Glad I came!

 

I learnt a lot about Buddhism, too. Thank you. Just goes to show these things can be discussed without petty argument.

[nac]

Vajrahridaya: Surely you don't presume to speak for all of them? Many of the zen people especially, are fans of Taoism. I have Theravadin inclinations myself. Don't forget one of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism: Buddhism is not for everyone. (even HHDL says so) "Conversion" to Buddhism must be a personal journey without any external pressure. Let's not forget the lessons taught by Osel too quickly. One thing I like better about Taoism is that the belief system is minimalistic, streamlined and elegant. You don't have to pick and choose from a hundred different semi-compatible philosophical sub-schools like in Buddhism. Overall, I prefer Buddhism so far, but that is my personal choice. I have seen this discussion several times on E-Sangha and I don't see the point in it anymore.

[Butcho]

I suppose these kinds of discussions are not entirely without merit. There is a time and a season for everything. The thing I think that needs to be remembered is that terms like Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Hinduism, and so on, are all "Umbrella Terms". None of these "isms" are monolithic. Each has various schools of thought. And as such many of these schools can have as much or more in common with their counterparts found under other umbrella terms. And of course Zennists claim that Zen represents a distillation of all the great teachings. But then we find that there are various schools of Zen.

 

The course that can be discoursed is not the eternal course.

 

The whole cannot be put under any one term for all names name in part only.

 

The highest teachings are beyond words.

 

Some things can only be said, or heard, in silence.

 

Thus meditation, awareness training, is fundamental to any true understanding where the existential is concerned.

 

Anything wholesome that is practiced until a feel is developed for going with the grain of the task at hand is a type of meditation.

 

Paying attention is fundamental.

 

None of the great teachings are what we "think" they are for they all speak to that which is beyond words.

 

Whatever is before us is our teacher.

 

Butcho

Edited June 30, 2009 by Butcho

[Wayfarer64]

I see the greatest difference between Taoist ideas & Buddhist ideas is that Taoists do not insist on a good/bad ruling on everything under the sun... everything under the sun is warmed by the sun and takes its nurishment from the earth...As well as the sun

 

Our idea of oneness is quite different from Buddhists... whose Nervanic oneness is without being. Being is to be discarded by Buddhists as a horror...

 

Taoists realize it is the greatest gift ever besowed on spiritual beings of light... (which we all are in fact-I promise!!!)

 

Life scares Buddhists and repels them - for Taoists it is just the stuff of life that drives us to explore the realms of being we may encounter on these levels... To transcend them yes- but not to disparage!

 

Buddhism was founded by a spoiled rich kid who was shocked and terrified by the ills of the world which he had been previously kept ignorant of...

 

It is no surprise that he was all about catagorizing experience and levels of being as good & bad because of some esoteric value system...

 

Karma Artha Dharma - we Taoists see these differentiations and say they are still all one and the same in fact, and not to be valued as less or more because of there inherent place in the universe is only relative to circumstances...

 

There really is no up and down...

[Siliconvalley1]

This might be a good read.

[Sunya]

I see the greatest difference between Taoist ideas & Buddhist ideas is that Taoists do not insist on a good/bad ruling on everything under the sun... everything under the sun is warmed by the sun and takes its nurishment from the earth...As well as the sun

 

Our idea of oneness is quite different from Buddhists... whose Nervanic oneness is without being. Being is to be discarded by Buddhists as a horror...

 

Taoists realize it is the greatest gift ever besowed on spiritual beings of light... (which we all are in fact-I promise!!!)

 

Life scares Buddhists and repels them - for Taoists it is just the stuff of life that drives us to explore the realms of being we may encounter on these levels... To transcend them yes- but not to disparage!

 

Buddhism was founded by a spoiled rich kid who was shocked and terrified by the ills of the world which he had been previously kept ignorant of...

 

It is no surprise that he was all about catagorizing experience and levels of being as good & bad because of some esoteric value system...

 

Karma Artha Dharma - we Taoists see these differentiations and say they are still all one and the same in fact, and not to be valued as less or more because of there inherent place in the universe is only relative to circumstances...

 

There really is no up and down...

 

 

it is obvious that you know nothing of Buddhism.

 

Basically everything that you said is wrong. If you want to learn something and broaden your horizon (Buddhism is one of the largest religions in the world, its good to know about it), you can start here http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dsantina/tree/

[Siliconvalley1]

indeed looking for differences and viewing ones own chosen tradition as 'superior' is just the play of ego. superior? no. more applicable for you? sure!

 

 

indeed!

 

any serious student of mysticism and perennial philosophy can attest to this. those that view a certain tradition as 'superior' just haven't really dug deep into other philosophies. this is being a fundamentalist.. this is being in the 'mythic' worldview of separation.. this is clinging to old habits and beliefs that only reinforce the egoistic illusion of superiority

 

i too was ignorant for a while, thinking that East > West, until I studied christian mysticism and the works of saints such as St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross. also studied Sufism for a little bit, which is mystical Islam..tried to get into my Jewish roots a bit by studying Kabbalah, a bit overly complex to me but found much in common with everything else. the introduction in a kabbalah book I picked up in Tzfat, birthplace of kabbalah in Israel, by a very prominent Rabbi said that the wisdom of the ancient tibetan buddhists and that of qabala masters is identical.

 

all the same, all the same. semantics... different fingers pointing to the moon. why get caught up on the finger? saying this finger is better than that finger? when the moon should be the real point of concentration

[Sunya]

yes, my views have changed. I'm not a permanent entity, always changing. evolving.

 

really, you have nothing better to do than reading my posts from 1 year ago? keep digging around I guess, maybe you'll find something good in there...

Edited July 2, 2009 by mikaelz