Hello from Nick...

[nick]

Hi All,

 

I came to this forum seeking understanding from those that may be involved in both Buddhist practice and Tao cultivation. I am essentially Buddhist and even though I find I am more suited to the Hinayana vehicle/path, I am involved in Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions (specifically, Karma Kagyu Tibetan Buddhist approach/tradition).

 

I initially was attracted to the Theravadan tradition and still am. However, all of the root teachings found in this tradition is also found in the equaly disciplined traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and I find great refuge within them.

 

So, why, then, does a Buddhist, who is completely at home with the traditions and practices of their choice, come knocking on the doors of the great Tao tradition? Good question.

 

I have fallen in love with a Taiwanese woman who has been cultivated in the Tao and who is a strong practitioner of the Tao in her everyday life (and committed to making it stronger). The dilemma I have is that I have not come to the Tao as a result of my own motivation and investigation, as happened with Buddhism.

 

She is encouraging me to be Cultivated in the Tao, believing that it will change my life. She may be right. I know that the Tao has changed her life and views on a most profound level and this is her motivation for wishing to include me in the Tao. Indeed, the practice and cultivation of Morality, Ethics, Kindness and Compassion in the Tao appears to be identical to Buddhist view and there are also aspects of the Tao that seems to be parallel with Mahayana Buddhist view and approach.

 

However, English is not spoken freely in the Tao community I would be joining. The language is Mandarin and some Cantonese. And, after a little investigation of the Tao, and my understanding of Buddhist Refuge, I feel that any commitment I make, must be sincere (of course), but must also include a commitment to the practice of Tao rituals, attendance to Temple and active involvement in the Tao community, in the same way as I do as a Buddhist.

 

However, she says that Cultivation is a ritual and that it is the daily practice that is important, and she feels that in this way I can take my Cultivation to heart and carry that, without conflict, into my Buddhist practice, without actually having to divide my commitment between two communities and two religions on a regular basis. Of course, I can be free to participate and help in the community as opportunities arise, but she feels that I can maintain my primary focus as a Buddhist.

 

As an example of an everyday benefit of being Cultivated, in the context of our relationship and as a way to align with the woman I love (apart from sharing the spirit of Cultivation), is that I can take on the Tao commitment to not eating meat (or, not cause harm to living beings). A commitment which she already observed for some years now. I know that I could do this as a Buddhist, where it is encouraged. But for Taoists, not eating meat is a significant commitment that seems to be an integral part of being Cultivated.

 

Naturally, I feel I must talk to the Master about my motivation for being Cultivated in the Tao. If the Master is happy for me to take the spirit of Cultivation and does not require that I make a commitment to become an active and regular member of the community (helping out and attending as I can), then I would be happy to be Cultivated, as this would reflect my motivation. And, happy knowing that it is okay to fullfil many of the commitments of the Tao through my commitments to Buddhist practice.

 

So, there we have it. I find I have a decision to make. Hopefully the Master can help me deal with my internal conflict by saying it is okay for me to have a token involvement with the Tao through Cultivation.

 

Cheers, everyone.

Edited July 14, 2009 by nick

[Butcho]

Nick,

 

I do not believe it is consistent with the way of the Buddha or that of Lao Tzu to make one's life complicated by religious considerations. Both men, in my opinion, were mystics and philosophers first, men of religion a distant second. I think they would have gotten along fine with each other.

 

Such men as the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Jesus, Ramana Maharshi, Rumi, Hui-Neng, and so on, were first and foremost true to themselves. They were irreligious men. Liberated men. Free men.

 

Wherever you go, trust your own mystic heart. It was given to you by existence and no one can take it away from you.

 

It is the idealization of our concepts, in this case our religious mindsets, that divide us one from the other. That divide what is by nature whole. Such deliberations de-liberate. The liberated are no longer mesmerized by conceptual reality, this religion versus that for instance, but by being in accord with the way things are. Existence as it is and not merely as we think it is. I think, therefore I think I am.

 

Learn from whatever is in front of you. Everything else is a distraction.

 

Everything I have said applies to women at least as much if not more so. Man comes out of woman. Woman does not come out of man. There is an order to existence. All is not chaos. All is a unity. And yet even the word unity comes up short. The Course that can be discoursed is not the eternal Course.

 

Does a dog have Buddha nature?... if you answer the question either yes or no you do not understand the nature of the question this most fundamental of koans asks. Buddhism is not what one "thinks" it is. Thinking about existential matters does not lead to enlightened understanding unless it is grounded in non-conceptual experience. Direct experience. Follow your breath home. Not my breath. Not the Buddha's. Not Lao Tzu's. Yours.

 

Butcho

[Trunk]

We're all basically working

on becoming more refined

and aligned

call it what you will

[Butcho]

We're all basically working

on becoming more refined

and aligned

call it what you will

 

 

Trunk,

 

You may be guilty of parsimony here. Of oversimplification. One is not always speaking to the choir. And yet I find the gist of what you are saying resonates with me as a fellow wayfarer. However, all is not one. All is a unitive one. Mountains are mountains again. Rivers are again rivers.

 

Also the wayfarer is not refining the ego. She is re-defining her sense of self. From the sense of a completely separate self to the experience of the self as a part of the Self that has no self. We are each a part of that which has no parts for there are no lines of demarcation in nature, rather, there are merely areas of confluence. Where does one end of a whole string end and the other end begin? No such point exists.

 

The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. The tao that can be numbered is not the eternal Tao. The return to the One is not a full return. Where existential matters are concerned qualitative terms trump quantitative ones. All is not one, all is a unitive one. A whole greater than the sum of its parts. The whole cannot be said. But not everyone is conscious of this fact. Other people are people again.

 

Butcho

[Trunk]

You may be guilty ... conscious of this fact. Other people are people again.

That was fabulous!

What fun.

Thank you for your fine prose, sir.

[Butcho]

That was fabulous!

What fun.

Thank you for your fine prose, sir.

 

Trunk,

 

All practice and no play makes Johnny a dull boy.

 

What is invisible and smells like bananas?

 

I have never really talked with a gorilla before. So, if I do it poorly please have om mani peme hung on me.

 

Prose is all I nose for I am just a man when I am not being the Tao.

 

... monkey farts. Thought you would never ask.

 

Nick just left the building.

 

Wonder if I am still getting a new Camaro for Christmas.

 

Two straw dogs and three hail Marys.

 

Butcho