A question about Arahats

[nac]

One can see dependent origination in everything if so inclined. The clarity of presentation does not seem to be as succinct though. What's this.. Tao that exists before the universe came into being? Something that's whole and complete in and of itself that precedes the universe? This is also from the Tao De Ching. But, sure it's a way of pointing, but I still think it's not so clear. It' doesn't seem to transcend beginning in initial presentation. Then again it all depends upon how it's translated, because Dzogchen uses the language of since the beginning mind is pure and unsullied. Even though the buddha say's since beginningless time the mind is pure and unsullied. Of course it's all semantics, but symbols are what's used so the clearest are the best.

 

Dzogchen is saying since the moment that mind is apprehended. The Buddha is saying that even if mind is not apprehended.

Chicken or egg. The truth lies in transcendence.

[Vajrahridaya]

Chicken or egg. The truth lies in transcendence.

 

Everything is already transcendent, so it lies in eminence.

 

I'm just yanking with ya.

[Birch]

Tao that exists before the universe came into being?

 

Thanks for ongoing discussion!

 

My current issue is this "before" stuff. The way I understand it. The 1000 things ARE DO but they are ALSO Tao without any beginning as I might conventionally understand "beginning"

 

The other issue is how to "practically" live with this understanding.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The other issue is how to "practically" live with this understanding.

 

Practice makes perfect. It helps to have a teacher, or a guide.

 

In Buddhism, we not only have the teaching to take refuge in. We take refuge in a teacher and a group of students who practice "the way".

Edited August 9, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

Well ;-) This is what TTB's is for;-) But ultimately, the path is individual and I would argue while it's necessary to have support, it can be counter-productive to blindly follow anyone. Group-think is IMO a double-edged sword in any situation, as is accepting whatever you like just because you like it without asking yourself why.

 

I keep doing this myself and it's real hard work to not do.

[Vajrahridaya]

Well ;-) This is what TTB's is for;-) But ultimately, the path is individual and I would argue while it's necessary to have support, it can be counter-productive to blindly follow anyone. Group-think is IMO a double-edged sword in any situation, as is accepting whatever you like just because you like it without asking yourself why.

 

I keep doing this myself and it's real hard work to not do.

 

Of course... as the Buddha said, "Don't follow anything because it's rumored to be true, written in books of antiquity, followed by a majority, only when it is deemed as true and good for the benefit of all should it be implemented." This is a paraphrase, but that's what the Buddha taught, to not even follow his words blindly just because the words came out of his mouth. He wanted his students to really understand the meaning of things and use discernment.

[nac]

Everything is already transcendent, so it lies in eminence.

 

I'm just yanking with ya.

You're right. The truth can be discovered through transcendence.

[goldisheavy]

No, the Buddhas are not us. They are individual mind streams since beginningless time.

 

We are all individuals and not one big mind. It's a nice poetic metaphor to describe the unitive experience, but is not true upon analysis.

 

Actually, upon analysis no assertion is found to be true. I mean, none. Zero. No assertion.

 

Why is that? That's because of the groundless nature of phenomena. Indeed, when one looks for the basis and fails to find it many times, one builds an experiential confidence in the empty nature of phenomena.

 

To say that we are individual mindstrreams is just as off base as to say we are one big mind. It's all extreme, which comes from elaboration. The very nature of the process of elaboration is to state what a thing cannot be, to delineate it, to describe a thing in terms of constraints. But the true nature of things is that things are not inherently constrained. We can experience, feel, see these constraints, but they are not real or lasting... That's what we mean when we say that phenomena are empty.

 

Tao that exists before the universe came into being?

 

Thanks for ongoing discussion!

 

My current issue is this "before" stuff. The way I understand it. The 1000 things ARE DO but they are ALSO Tao without any beginning as I might conventionally understand "beginning"

 

Tao is a very complicated concept to understand. Tao is not "before". When it is said that Tao is ancestral to things, it is meant that it's the fundamental nature of things. their underlying reality. It doesn't mean that Tao existed as an entity before other things, in physical linear time. Tao exists now. It's not something that's gone now that the universe is here.

 

Tao is a strange word, because what it's trying to describe is very hard to describe. It's a placeholder really. It's not a perfect label. "I don't know what to call it, so I call it Tao". The "don't know what to call it" is key. So to understand what Tao is, one has to spend a long time pondering everything that's been said about it, but even then, you will still see it in your own context, in the context of your own being, which is fine, just be aware of this.

 

The other issue is how to "practically" live with this understanding.

 

And what do you mean by that? I bet if you look into the details of your questions, you'll find it to evaporate on its own. Just look at what you mean to ask. In detail. I believe you'll see that question vanish if you do that.

[Inedible]

For what it's worth, the gap between the Theravada and the Mahayana seems to be closing.

[Birch]

Cool!

 

I wrote

 

"My current issue is this "before" stuff. The way I understand it. The 1000 things ARE DO but they are ALSO Tao without any beginning as I might conventionally understand "beginning"

 

Maybe should have put "without any beginning as I might conventionally understand "beginning"

 

And I really think I did mean the same thing as what you wrote GIH

 

"Tao is a very complicated concept to understand. Tao is not "before". When it is said that Tao is ancestral to things, it is meant that it's the fundamental nature of things. their underlying reality. It doesn't mean that Tao existed as an entity before other things, in physical linear time. Tao exists now. It's not something that's gone now that the universe is here."

 

 

I wrote

 

"The other issue is how to "practically" live with this understanding."

 

And you GIH wrote

 

"And what do you mean by that? I bet if you look into the details of your questions, you'll find it to evaporate on its own. Just look at what you mean to ask. In detail. I believe you'll see that question vanish if you do that."

 

A good suggestion. Will have a look. Thanks

[Li TaoRen]

The two schools are at odds because... a few hundred years ago there was a huge buddhist conference because so many subsystems were popping up. What became the Mahayana or great vehicle wanted to adopt Tantric and energy practices and more complex theorem. Some, The Theravadins wished to remain true to the original teachings or suttas(sutras). So there was a big split. One group decided to call themselves the Greater Vehicle, and slander the other by refering to them as the lesser vehicle- this is where the animosity comes from. Many people think Theravada means lesser vehicle, but in fact it means the way of the elders. Mahayanists see some beliefs as selfish, but if you study with Theravadins you see that it is a personal choice. There are selfish Mahayana too. One vehicle is not greater but merely different.

Thanks, I think I got the ignorance part.

 

I still don't get why the 2 schools at odds. I'll read again but given what I know about reading and what I don't know about Buddhism I may just not be able to "get it" without further input from people that do know. Sorry about that, I'd just rather not assume.

 

 

The Wuji or non-existence, is not nothingness, but an infinite emptiness of potentiality

Thanks!

 

Some interesting ideas in that last post especially.

 

What about Tao in that framework? I'm likely showing myself up again but in Taoism, don't the things come out of non-existence?

[Birch]

Thanks Li Tao Ren!

 

It's the way I was looking at it too.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, upon analysis no assertion is found to be true. I mean, none. Zero. No assertion.

 

Yes, all things are definitely empty of inherent existence and all is relative, that's an assertion that is ultimately true regardless of it's realization or not.

Why is that? That's because of the groundless nature of phenomena. Indeed, when one looks for the basis and fails to find it many times, one builds an experiential confidence in the empty nature of phenomena.

 

To say that we are individual mindstrreams is just as off base as to say we are one big mind. It's all extreme, which comes from elaboration. The very nature of the process of elaboration is to state what a thing cannot be, to delineate it, to describe a thing in terms of constraints. But the true nature of things is that things are not inherently constrained. We can experience, feel, see these constraints, but they are not real or lasting... That's what we mean when we say that phenomena are empty.

 

But your saying that emptiness itself is ultimate reality then. The way things work is endless interdependency through the truth that all experiences and experientials are empty. Emptiness does not exist though as a fundamental reality, it's more of a quality. Yes, we are not inherently individual mind-streams. But it's closer to the truth of things than to say we are one big mind, or a single consciousness. It's true that we intermingle, so we are not fundimentally individual.

 

Tao is a very complicated concept to understand. Tao is not "before". When it is said that Tao is ancestral to things, it is meant that it's the fundamental nature of things. their underlying reality. It doesn't mean that Tao existed as an entity before other things, in physical linear time. Tao exists now. It's not something that's gone now that the universe is here.

 

Still sounds like Brahmanism.

 

Tao is a strange word, because what it's trying to describe is very hard to describe. It's a placeholder really. It's not a perfect label. "I don't know what to call it, so I call it Tao". The "don't know what to call it" is key. So to understand what Tao is, one has to spend a long time pondering everything that's been said about it, but even then, you will still see it in your own context, in the context of your own being, which is fine, just be aware of this.

 

One can never truly know unless fully enlightened like a Buddha how people inwardly experience concepts, as that's very subtle. Still emptiness is never a wholeness that pre-exists the universe. It never exists from it's own side as the Tao Te Ching seems to apply the Tao does. Though, unless you are just talking about the illumined realization of inherent interdependency and thus the emptiness of things as the endless process and thus just saying... thus... or, the way of things... or... the process... or the unified field of experience that pre-exists the conceptualization of such yet is also the conceptualization of such simultaneously..

 

Anyway... You could be right, maybe Taoism leads to the exact same realization. It doesn't ever seem to be reified as a cosmic will, which is good.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

The Wuji or non-existence, is not nothingness, but an infinite emptiness of potentiality

 

See for Buddhism, it's dependent origination that's infinite potentiality through the quality of emptiness. Emptiness is not an existing non-thing that pulsates potentiality. It's the quality of phenomena that grants infinite variableness.

 

 

In response to the rest of what was quoted in this post:

 

If one really reads the Pali Suttas, one gets the Mahayana interpretation from them. It's not that Hinayana is even a slandering, which is what Hinayanins don't get because they want to protect their egos. It's saying that the interpretation of the Suttas as self liberation is a Hinayana view, it's not an absolute interpretation of the Pali Suttas as the Mahayanist interpretation of the Pali Suttas is Mahayana as the Buddha even said, "I'm doing this for all of you" when he left the palace. You can be a Theravadin and have a Mahayana view and practice about it. Also the Buddha himself taught the Mahayana to certain disciples at the same time that he taught the Hinayana view. The first Mahayana scriptures were recordings of things the Buddha said while he was alive, then some later ones were recorded from higher realms as he left through the 4th Jhana which leads to the Peerless Deva realm where he taught countless beings from even after he died.

 

For what it's worth, the gap between the Theravada and the Mahayana seems to be closing.

 

Yes, because Hinayana is just a way of interpreting, and not the scriptures themselves, as the scriptures themselves do teach a Mahayana view if one reads them carefully, though not as clearly as what are attributed to the Mahayana scriptures. Through technological globalisation, there are a lot of gaps being closed.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

In Taoism they come from a reified non-conceptuality. That's different and not seeing the dependent origination that the Buddha taught and saw directly beyond anything being a beginning.

 

From Tao Wiki:

 

"There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)"

 

That would be a reification of a non-conceptual substance that is a beginning of things, or an existence that is before the beginning of things. Buddhism see's that as conditional and not transcending dependent origination which is beginningless.

 

Taoism is just ultimating a substantial Truth beyond concepts that is always existent. It's pretty much the same as Brahmanism, or Vedanta.

 

This is not the same as Buddhist realization. Buddhas see that state as basically a state of meditative absorption when all the "gunas" or "tattvas", which are basically principles of reality, suppressed into a non-actualizing potentiality. It's basically calling the illumined deep unconsciousness experienced in deep sleep, or that dimension said to be beyond that as the ultimate Truth. To the Buddha that is just a state of mental focus on a formless space of consciousness, but not ultimate Truth.

 

 

This Tao is a state of absorption beyond thought. It's merely a subtle state of consciousness. When one comes out of this state one see's everyone start to kind of re-manifest so then one thinks that everything is a manifestation of this Tao. It's subtler in the experience of the meditation than it is in the explanation. But, Taoism is a substantial non-duality, while Buddhism is non-substantial.

 

As in Tao is the substance behind and of what things are made of. It's considered a wholeness that is pure being that is pryer to thingness. A background of a sort that all things are one with. It's considered the identity of things. The true abiding reality of all things.

 

Buddhism's non-duality is merely just recognizing that all phenomena even non-conceptual experiences beyond time are dependently originated and inherently empty of being in and of it's or themselves.

 

I think finally this post clarified - for me at least - Buddhist teachings on 'ultimate reality'

Edited August 10, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Li TaoRen]

I believe the true concept of the Wuji is dependant origination as well, I guess my language is unclear. As for the rest, I agree as well. I have just met many selfless Theravadins who aspire to far more than self-liberation. There is much writing of Buddhist history besides the Pali Suttas, and if one investigates, the idea that Theravada and Hinayana are the same school is false. In fact what is labeled as Hinayana was a very small movement that really; but not entirely waned after the great council. There are some texts explaining such accounts, and I apologize that i don't remember the names- I have not studied Buddhism for a decade. I found it hard not to get caught up in dogmatics. Taoism and Buddhism, dogma aside, are really very similar- extremely so. Real Taoists were less "organized" or communal; and for many reasons had to keep the teachings in obscurity. There are many cultivated people, with much knowledge of taoism, but it is greatly misinterpreted. Many "witch-hunts" came close to anhihilating most knowledge. What is popular and marketable now, is really a few obscure practices. The Buddhists were very good at preserving knowledge, and many Taoists as well, but the latter were victims to many bouts of oppression, long before Mao. Even recently due to Falun Gong issues there is a big crackdown on the esoteric knowledge and practices. Really, Buddhism and Taoism work together for balance. You are quite knowledgable, by the way. Refreshing.

See for Buddhism, it's dependent origination that's infinite potentiality through the quality of emptiness. Emptiness is not an existing non-thing that pulsates potentiality. It's the quality of phenomena that grants infinite variableness.

In response to the rest of what was quoted in this post:

 

If one really reads the Pali Suttas, one gets the Mahayana interpretation from them. It's not that Hinayana is even a slandering, which is what Hinayanins don't get because they want to protect their egos. It's saying that the interpretation of the Suttas as self liberation is a Hinayana view, it's not an absolute interpretation of the Pali Suttas as the Mahayanist interpretation of the Pali Suttas is Mahayana as the Buddha even said, "I'm doing this for all of you" when he left the palace. You can be a Theravadin and have a Mahayana view and practice about it. Also the Buddha himself taught the Mahayana to certain disciples at the same time that he taught the Hinayana view. The first Mahayana scriptures were recordings of things the Buddha said while he was alive, then some later ones were recorded from higher realms as he left through the 4th Jhana which leads to the Peerless Deva realm where he taught countless beings from even after he died.

Yes, because Hinayana is just a way of interpreting, and not the scriptures themselves, as the scriptures themselves do teach a Mahayana view if one reads them carefully, though not as clearly as what are attributed to the Mahayana scriptures. Through technological globalisation, there are a lot of gaps being closed.

 

 

 

 

My pleasure. Feel free to ask any questions. I will help anyone sincere

Thanks Li Tao Ren!

 

It's the way I was looking at it too.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Li TaoRen

[Vajrahridaya]

You are quite knowledgable, by the way. Refreshing.

 

Thank you!

 

Well... for one, the only reason why Vajrayana survived was because it flourished in Tibet during the time that it died in India. I think esoteric Taoism survived only based upon how underground it got. Or up in the mountains. I find Taoism to be the closest path to Buddhism. As it doesn't reify the ultimate nature of things as an ultimate omnipotent intelligence.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm online talking with my girlfriend... so I just happen to be up, nodding away every few minutes.

 

But, during one in between state. This kind of came to me. The difference between hinayana and mahayana is the difference between creating the will to overcome the violence of communication with many different types of people, with wisdom, turning that violence, or friction of the attempt, which is avoided through the hinayana view by just being silent and going, "swaha" (sacrificial offering) to people who just "wouldn't understand" and really engaging with people with an attempt to connect on their level and channel wisdom in a way that they can see it in themselves for themselves merely by being the appropriate type of mirror for them.

[Sunya]

Li TaoRen

 

you are right that Theravada cannot be compared to Hinayana. there's really no such thing or school as Hinayana, as its a name that the Mahayanists came up for certain schools that existed during their time. Theravada is the only school that survived from the supposed 'Hinayana' label, but in fact Theravada can hardly be called selfish since there is much emphasis on metta or loving-kindness. nowadays though, things are more PC (Politically Correct), and Tibetans generally look at Hinayana not as Smaller Vehicle but more like walking down a razors edge, very straight and small path, which is due to the many restrictions and rules which are meant to stop people from commiting negative acts/thoughts. Monks especially have these rules, vows, or vinaya or discipline and that is because Mahayana is inseperable from Hinayana. Tibetans also start out with Hinayana because they view mastery of Hinayana to be necessary before Mahayana, and the latter before Vajrayana. like a step by step program. but Theravada is not the Hinayana of the Tibetans. Theravada I feel is a much vaster school than its given credit for.

 

This PDF might be interesting to some

 

http://www.abhayagiri.org/index.php/main/book/138/

 

Small Boat, Great Mountain

Theravādan Reflections on The Natural Great Perfection

 

Ajahn Amaro reflects on the teachings of The Natural Great Perfection from the Dzogchen teachings and compares it with those familiar in the Pali Canon and in the Thai Forest Tradition.

Edited August 10, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

"One can acquire everything in solitude except character." - Stendhal

[nac]

You mean the Tao is something like luminiferous aether, a medium that allows the rest of creation to unfold?

 

BTW isn't a hinayanist simply a selfish cultivator from any school or tradition?

[Vajrahridaya]

Ajahn Amaro reflects on the teachings of The Natural Great Perfection from the Dzogchen teachings and compares it with those familiar in the Pali Canon and in the Thai Forest Tradition.

 

Thus as the Buddhas first statement, mind and it's phenomena are, pure, unborn and uncompounded since beginning-less time. The entire Cannon is an expression of this simple but incredibly complex statement.

 

You mean the Tao is something like luminiferous aether, a medium that allows the rest of creation to unfold?

 

BTW isn't a hinayanist simply a selfish cultivator from any school or tradition?

 

It's the quality of dependent origination that allows it to work.

[Inedible]

When someone chooses to become a Bodhisattva they are given extra training and other advantages. In general, this tends to be a result of willingness to be of service regardless of tradition. These people are like the first responders at a disaster scene, like fire fighters and police and ambulance workers. Most people don't have the specialized training or the equipment. Not everyone has a suitable temperament to become a first responder. Where almost everyone is concerned, the appropriate thing to do is to get themselves clear of a disaster scene if they can so they don't end up making more work for the first responders. There is nothing selfish about doing this.

[Vajrahridaya]

When someone chooses to become a Bodhisattva they are given extra training and other advantages. In general, this tends to be a result of willingness to be of service regardless of tradition. These people are like the first responders at a disaster scene, like fire fighters and police and ambulance workers. Most people don't have the specialized training or the equipment. Not everyone has a suitable temperament to become a first responder. Where almost everyone is concerned, the appropriate thing to do is to get themselves clear of a disaster scene if they can so they don't end up making more work for the first responders. There is nothing selfish about doing this.

 

Nope, not really, considering that Hinayana is just a stage in development leading naturally to Mahayana eventually.

[Li TaoRen]

Thanks Mikaelz. I agree. I studied with Luang Phor Viriyang Sirintharo in the Thai Forest Tradition. The knowledge and experience in meditation I gained was a blessing. I spent some time in a couple of Tibetan schools as well. Vajrayana(black hat) was very interesting, and I found it less dogmatic than most- more practical. I have to say, though, I had many bad experiences with Gelukpa; which some consider Vajrayana. Especially after discussing history with non-monastics, 3 years ago in Tibet. I expected to find alot of contempt for China, but found happy people, who said it was liberating not to be ruled by a certain monastic lineage. Apparently all farmers had to give their crops to the monasteries, so if you didn't want your children to starve to death most of them had to become monks. To me, this is oppressive and tyranical. I do not intend to slander any beliefs... I just believe there was some corruption and power addiction. Why else would you abandon those you say you are to care for? To go and collect money and power from Richard Geres? I am not saying the Dalai Lama, himself is corrupt, as he is obviously not. He was groomed from a young age , and that could include furthering an agenda beyond himself. I may sound harsh, but I do respect everyones beliefs, and see the good in the religious history of Tibet. I mean no offence to anyone, I am in favor of practice and spirituality, but not religion. I think religion has served its purpose, and is too easily corruptible.

Li TaoRen

 

you are right that Theravada cannot be compared to Hinayana. there's really no such thing or school as Hinayana, as its a name that the Mahayanists came up for certain schools that existed during their time. Theravada is the only school that survived from the supposed 'Hinayana' label, but in fact Theravada can hardly be called selfish since there is much emphasis on metta or loving-kindness. nowadays though, things are more PC (Politically Correct), and Tibetans generally look at Hinayana not as Smaller Vehicle but more like walking down a razors edge, very straight and small path, which is due to the many restrictions and rules which are meant to stop people from commiting negative acts/thoughts. Monks especially have these rules, vows, or vinaya or discipline and that is because Mahayana is inseperable from Hinayana. Tibetans also start out with Hinayana because they view mastery of Hinayana to be necessary before Mahayana, and the latter before Vajrayana. like a step by step program. but Theravada is not the Hinayana of the Tibetans. Theravada I feel is a much vaster school than its given credit for.

 

This PDF might be interesting to some

 

http://www.abhayagiri.org/index.php/main/book/138/

 

Small Boat, Great Mountain

Theravādan Reflections on The Natural Great Perfection

 

Ajahn Amaro reflects on the teachings of The Natural Great Perfection from the Dzogchen teachings and compares it with those familiar in the Pali Canon and in the Thai Forest Tradition.

 

 

Nac. " You mean the Tao is something like luminiferous aether, a medium that allows the rest of creation to unfold?"

 

I believe this would be the concept of Wuji, whereas Tao the unfolding. But maybe not the rest of creation as there is no seperateness. As we live in a realm of dualism, yin/yang, we forget that they arise from one source, yet are the source. We are just lost in our carving many things from the block in an attempt to comprehend its simplicity.