The Travels of Vajrahriidaya

[Vajrahridaya]

LOL. Vaj.

 

I kind of like that actually. That's endearing. Yo... VAJ!! What up dude!!?? Yeah, I can dig that...

[CarsonZi]

Where I come from Vaj is short for Vagina

[hyok]

I kind of like that actually. That's endearing. Yo... VAJ!! What up dude!!?? Yeah, I can dig that...

 

"Why do they call you Vaj?"

 

"Mom always said, 'you are what you eat.'"

 

How's that for a snazzy come back?

[JustARandomPanda]

I'll just be blunt. If you did... you would understand that the Buddha taught the flow, not transcendent experiences to be called "ATMAN" and eternal witnesses that are just merely the fruit of absorption methods reified as Self.

 

 

This is an interesting thought. For some reason when I read it it brought to mind something I'd read recently from U.G. Krishnamurti. It gave me a bit of a jolt. Namely because I had the odd sensation he's right! It occurred to me I literally don't know who or what I am without thought, emotion, sensation or whatnot. I meditate but haven't experienced any of these so-called higher jhanas.

 

 

There is a sensation in you, and you say that you are depressed or unhappy or blissful, jealous, greedy, envious. This labeling brings into existence the one who is translating this sensation. What you call "I" is nothing but this word 'red bag', 'bench', 'steps', 'banister', 'light bulb', 'angry', 'blissful', 'jealous', or whatever.

 

Why can't you leave the sensations alone? Why do you translate? You do this because if you do not communicate to yourself, you are not there. The prospect of that is frightening to the 'you'. - U.G. Krishnamurti

Edited August 5, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Vajrahridaya]

[Tao99]

"You Buddhists", see how your intention is debasing and cutting?

 

What I said was "SOMETIMES you Buddhists ..." See how you purposely lied about what I said to fulfill your intention to debase and cut down, regardless of the truth of what I said. Not Good.

 

The idea that, "You Buddhists"... is quite silly because look at these Tibetan Masters who lost their country and families and lots of their traditions history and scriptures. They're so playful and full of spunk! The Dalai Lama too laughs all the time.

 

Once again you are only seing what's in your biased mind. I said "SOMETIMES you Buddhists" which of course allows logically for sometimes you Buddhists dont, as in DL.

 

You purposely CHANGED my words to debase me and cut me down.

 

What a cheap trick.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

Yeah yeah... you know your intentions were to debase and cut down from the beginning.

 

You should have been more like... sometimes people... That'd be more truthful.

 

Everything else is a obvious reaction of my pointing out the initial slur by you. Thanks Mr. Super Tao.

 

 

 

 

"Why do they call you Vaj?"

 

"Mom always said, 'you are what you eat.'"

 

How's that for a snazzy come back?

 

I've said that before, when someone called me, "Pussy".

[Tao99]

My intent was to make a simple point of fact about some Buddhists like you I have seen:

 

"Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner, and make a boogey man out of every little thing. In the process you forget what does matter, what is the point, and get lost in trivia, delusional "rules", and unprovable metaphysics."

 

The rest is all in your self-serving, deluded mind.

 

Everything else - my 2nd post - was simply to point out how you purposely changed my words to suit your purpose to debase and cut down. This was an obviously cheap, pathetic trick to "win" a point and debase. But of course you won't be able to admit this obvious truth, as that would go against your entrenched self-identity.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

My intent was to make a simple point of fact about some Buddhists like you I have seen:

 

"Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner, and make a boogey man out of every little thing. In the process you forget what does matter, what is the point, and get lost in trivia, delusional "rules", and unprovable metaphysics."

 

The rest is all in your self-serving, deluded mind.

 

Everything else - my 2nd post - was simply to point out how you purposely changed my words to suit your purpose to debase and cut down. This was an obviously cheap, pathetic trick to "win" a point and debase. But of course you won't be able to admit this obvious truth, as that would go against your entrenched self-identity.

 

But Tao99, your point from the very beginning was delusional and subjective.

 

Trivia? Taoists don't break down the elements of spiritual practice far enough, how about that? I don't know if I fully believe that as I'm not that well studied in Taoism. But so it'd be a really subjective idea.

 

Also, rules? What, you mean focusing the energy for higher purposes? There are so many tenet systems with different intentions and for different rates and states of personal evolution. It's obvious you don't know what your talking about because you haven't really studied Buddhism that deeply. Dzogchen for instance only has one rule, stay in the state of Rigpa. Do Guru Yoga everyday where one mingles one's mind with the mind's of all enlightened masters. That's it. Buddhism has a different goal from Taoism it seems for the most part anyway. So of course it's going to be different over-all. Taoism also has rules of discipline in order to hone the energy towards a goal.

 

Also, we do prove our metaphysics, which is not really metaphysics as that implies a single substance that all things spring from and are motifications of. But anyway, we prove them to ourselves through meditation, transcending the limits of physical science and the 5 senses. Your free to think it's hog-wash... hey!! Free will! Or is it? Could just be limited perception based upon causes and conditions of limitation. Oh, that Buddhist in me who get's caught up in trivial break downs of the natures of various types of perception. Whao is me!

 

I also did not change your words. I just dropped the Sometimes in the beginning, from the looks of the entire rest of your post, I was quite right in my assessment of your assumptions.

 

I don't have to admit anything, because I'm not the one at fault here. <---Me, all smug and self satisfied in the Florida sun.

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh yeah... the Buddha as I quoted somewhere in this room, said that "it's delusional to be attached to any tenet system". That's because they are not absolute, they are relative, like everything else.

 

So, our rules serve a purpose and when they don't we let them go. Not like the 10 commandments or anything like that, though many of those go without saying. A person should be good to their neighbor and his wife and what not.

 

But, our rules serve a purpose of discipline and harnessing focus for specific purposes so that we transcend our limitations by applying limitations that weed out old way's of habit thought and action patterns.

 

Ya dig?

[Tao99]

Just as I predicted - complete inability to admit that you CHANGED my words to suit your debasing intention.

 

There's no point in talking to a person who is so lost as to do that.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dropping the sometimes is not changing your words.

[Tao99]

Dropping the sometimes is not changing your words.

 

So you need a teacher in first order predicate logic. I could be your logic teacher but I don't think you will listen objectively, but simply implement your intention to always be right and never be wrong, no matter what I say.

 

Can you agree that just because you read Buddhist Doctrine doesn't make you omniscient and never able to be wrong about anything?

 

lesson 1. quantifiers - term designating the amount of members of the subject set (all/some/no) that are members of the predicate set.

 

lesson 2. my sentence used the some quantifier:

"Sometimes you Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner ..."

 

This allows for the possibility that sometimes Buddhists are not like this. (Some members of the set are not)

 

lesson 3. your sentence dropped my quantifier, thus replacing it with a universal quantifier:

"You Buddhists seem to see a boogey man around every corner ..."

 

This does not allow for the possibility that sometimes Buddhists are not like this. It applies to all members of the set.

 

So obviously these are two very different statements with two very different meanings. In fact my sentence was the more objective, non-generalizing, milder one.

 

Saying that All Buddhists are like this is an over-generalization, and I would never say THAT. But that is what you put in my mouth when you changed my sentence by dropping my quantifier. And then you debased and cut me down for THAT.

 

Conclusion

 

So you changed my sentence in the same way as changing the sentence:

 

Some dogs are smelly.

to

All dogs are smelly.

 

and are saying they say the same thing.

 

Your logic professor would give you an F, and so will I. Can you take it, and accept you are wrong?

 

I doubt it. But maybe you will pleasantly surprise me, as i never give up hope

Edited August 5, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

BLAH BLAH BLAH... Your overall intention was captured just fine by me which was the entire point.

 

Calling me a lier? Amazing... your entire premise in your initial post was bogus.

 

Mr. Taoist delusion...

 

You could have said, "Sometimes humans"... That would have been objective.

 

Anyway... keep cleaning your mirror.

 

Oh, by the way, I apologize for dropping the Quantifier...

 

I'm wrong, your right...

[Tao99]

BLAH BLAH BLAH... Your overall intention was captured just fine by me which was the entire point.

 

Calling me a lier? Amazing... your entire premise in your initial post was bogus.

 

Mr. Taoist delusion...

 

You could have said, "Sometimes humans"... That would have been objective.

 

Anyway... keep cleaning your mirror.

 

Mr. Taoist delusion huh? How objective of you. Do you ever follow your own advice?

 

Your a Buddhist. I wanted to make a point specifically about Buddhists. Sound familiar? Just like you making a point about Taoism, Hinduism, the rest of your list above. LOL what a joke. So its ok for you to make such points but its not ok for me to make such points? There you go again with your trivial "rules" that clearly are to apply to others and not to you. If I want to make a point about Buddhism I will. If I want tio make a point about dogs I will. I won't say Some animals are smelly, when my subject of discussion is dogs. That would be logically stupid. Using the genus of your subject set is not being "objective" Mr. Buddha Delusion. Its being more general and thus missing the specific point to be made.

 

I knew you would have to be condescending no matter what I said LOL.

 

Anyway ... keep cleaning your mirror.

 

PS I'm glad you added this; it wasn't there when I quoted you. Shows some progress. Of course you still had to call be Mr Taoist Delusion and get your immature dig ad hom in.

 

"Oh, by the way, I apologize for dropping the Quantifier...

 

I'm wrong, your right..."

Edited August 6, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

Wow... you are delusional.

 

Your entire premise was deluded...

 

My apology was that you spent all that trivial time arguing about some silly aspect of my quote of you which was basically derogitory from the very beginning. Which was the whole point.

 

All I say is that the paths aren't complete and actually Buddhist influence ad's more completion to every tradition around the entire planet. Including mystic Christian mantra practice and their monk rules, etc. all influenced by Buddhism and Hindu influenced Buddhism. Your Taoism is influenced by the Buddhas teachings as well.

 

Anyway... go look in the proverbial mirror.

[Tao99]

Now you are just being odd. Here's what your apology said:

 

"Oh, by the way, I apologize for dropping the Quantifier...

 

I'm wrong, your right..."

 

Now you are saying:

 

"My apology was that you spent all that trivial time arguing about some silly aspect of my quote of you which was basically derogitory from the very beginning. Which was the whole point."

 

Wow ... you are delusional. You don't even hear yourself.

 

My assertion about some Buddhists was no more derogatory then your many criticisms about Hindu, Taoism, et al. There you go again - making up trivial rules that don't apply to you. At least you are consistent.

 

If you can't stand the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen in the glass house on a public forum cooking up mud balls. Yes, Buddhism will be critiqued here along with Taoism and all the others., welcome to the club

Edited August 6, 2009 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

Your Taoism is influenced by the Buddhas teachings as well.

 

Ha! Mine doesn't! Hehehe.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

If you can't stand the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen in the glass house on a public forum cooking up mud balls. Yes, Buddhism will be critiqued here along with Taoism and all the others., welcome to the club

 

Make good criticisms then...

 

Instead of mal-informed ones based upon insecurities.

 

I meant the intention of my apology and my tongue sticking out was that it doesn't matter that I apologize about that, because the point of my post had nothing to do with the quantifier but the over all premise of your post, which is why I added explanations.

 

You know what? Go ahead... I'm not here to talk with people like you my dear. You have a good Taoist practice now, so enjoy.

 

 

Ha! Mine doesn't! Hehehe.

 

Be well!

 

I realize that Marblehead.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Tao99]

All I say is that the paths aren't complete and actually Buddhist influence ad's more completion to every tradition around the entire planet. Including mystic Christian mantra practice and their monk rules, etc. all influenced by Buddhism and Hindu influenced Buddhism. Your Taoism is influenced by the Buddhas teachings as well.

 

Anyway... go look in the proverbial mirror.

 

You should look in the proverbial mirror and see a face that knows nothing about Tao practice. My Tao practice has been handed down for 47 centuries, way before the Buddha. It needed no Buddhadharma and doesn't need any now. It is 100% complete in itself. And it's ultimate metaphysical outcome is completely different then in Buddhism.

 

And we are able to say "to each there own," "you go your way and we will go our way" we force no unsolicited advice on anyone, and as long as we get along on this shared planet, nothing else is important. All else will naturally take care of itself.

 

I don't want to be proselytized by you, so please do not respond with a "derogatory" comment about how my way isn't complete (therefore inferior by implication), or needs Buddhadharma in it etc. I'm not in the market. Thanks. It would be best if you just started your own thread: Why Buddhism is the Only Way - All others are incomplete, ergo inferior.

 

On a public forum I'm sure you know if you critique other's ways, and advance yours as the only complete way, people will question you and critique what you propose. Did you really think everybody was just going to roll over and say ok I'm dropping my way based just on your words - thank you oh holy one!

 

Personally, in my life I just offer Tao advice when solicited. Otherwise I just keep it to myself because who knows where they are in their life, and what they are ready for, or need.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

You should look in the proverbial mirror and see a face that knows nothing about Tao practice. My Tao practice has been handed down for 47 centuries, way before the Buddha. It needed no Buddhadharma and doesn't need any now. It is 100% complete in itself. And it's ultimate metaphysical outcome is completely different then in Buddhism.

 

Exactly the goal is different, which I've said a number of times. Our goal is complete liberation from suffering, freedom from unconscious rebirth, and helping others realize the same. But, to say it's completely not influenced by Buddhism which was huge in China for almost 2000 years is silly.

 

And we are able to say "to each there own," "you go your way and we will go our way" we force no unsolicited advice on anyone, and as long as we get along with compassion and good will on this shared planet, nothing else is important. All else will naturally take care of itself.

 

See, we see that people need at least the dharma seed to be planted in them, even if they hate it in the life, in another life they will re-encounter it. Because your goal is not complete liberation from Samsara and unconscious rebirth or re-cycling. We see your path as limited and your goal as mundane. But yeah... listen if you might, ignore if you will. No sweat off my back. As far as taking care of itself... that idea that all things start from one place and go to the same is Samsaric to Buddhism.

 

I don't want to be proselytized by you, so please do not respond with a "derogatory" comment about how my way isn't complete (therefore inferior by implication), or needs Buddhadharma in it etc. I'm not in the market. Thanks. It would be best if you just started your own thread: Why Buddhism is the Only Way - All others are incomplete, ergo inferior.

 

Well, I would say it's complete within the frame point of your goal, which is different. It's not like Hinduism which has the same goal as Buddhism, but doesn't clarify it to the same degree as Buddhism. Taoist goal is entirely different, so were playing in an entirely different ball park. Which is why I didn't say much about it and I don't say much about it.

 

What is the Taoist goal anyway?

On a public forum I'm sure you know if you critique other's ways, and advance yours as the only complete way, people will question you and critique what you propose. Did you really think everybody was just going to roll over and say ok I'm dropping my way based just on your words - thank you oh holy one!

 

Of course not, which is why I've been answering questions from people and I answer nicely to people who are nice about it. Who knows.. sometimes you make an effect more by insulting them, and then they think about it more out of anger, and it makes a deeper impression on the mind stream and may bare fruit later in life or in a future life.

Personally, in my life I just offer Tao advice when solicited. Otherwise I just keep it to myself because who knows where they are in their life, and what they are ready for, or need.

 

That's cool, I'm arrogant and outspoken by nature and ghetto culture which I was raised in. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!

 

EDIT: 200 = 2000

EDIT: It seems that Taoism believes in a single essence that all things are modifications of. That there is a beginning to the universe.

 

That this Tao existed since before the universe. Sounds like the Buddha would have critiqued that too. Sounds like reifying an absorption state in meditation.

 

But, it's still a good path and doesn't lead to eternal damnation. It doesn't seem to complete the goal of immortality though because what happens at the end of the cosmic eon? You just merge with the Tao potentiality for the next coming universe?

Edited August 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Tao99]

Exactly the goal is different, which I've said a number of times. Our goal is complete liberation from suffering, freedom from unconscious rebirth, and helping others realize the same. But, to say it's completely not influenced by Buddhism which was huge in China for almost 200 years is silly.

 

The Tao practice is 4700 years old was complete in form way before Buddhism arrived, needed to add no Buddhadharma, and didn't. It was 100% complete before Buddhism came close to arriving. So u r wrong.

 

What is the Taoist goal anyway?

 

Yea right. You will be the last . Are you converting or just going to tell me where i'm wrong?

 

That's cool, I'm arrogant and outspoken by nature and ghetto culture which I was raised in. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!

yea blah blah.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

Dzogchen has different tenets. It doesn't repress much of anything...

 

I corrected my 200 year's to what I meant to put was 2000 years.

 

I've read the history of Taoism and before Buddhism it was pretty wild. More like naturism and kind of a counter Confucianism path. There were different branches.

 

Many scholars talk about how Buddhism influenced you guys. Even Shaolin Martial arts came from Bodhidharma because martial arts was Indian for thousands upon thousands of years before it was in China, supposedly the oldest form of martial arts is Indian. It just developed more in China.

[Vajrahridaya]

It doesn't seem that scholars agree with your assessment of it's origins. Even the Tao de Ching wasn't written until about the 600 B.C. Then you have Religious Taoism, Philosophical Taoism and Folk Taoism? It looks like all those great Classics didn't really start until anywhere from 600 to 200 B.C. Including the I-Ching, Lau Tzu Confucianism... etc.

 

Your formalized form of Taoism is most definitely influenced by Buddhism.

 

Also...

 

"The foundation of the Asian martial arts is likely a blend of early Chinese and Indian martial arts. Extensive trade occurred between these nations beginning around 600 BC, with diplomats, merchants, and monks traveling the Silk Road. During the Warring States period of Chinese history (480-221 BC) extensive development in martial philosophy and strategy emerged, as described by Sun Tzu in The Art of War (c. 350 BC).[4]

An early legend in martial arts tells the tale of a South Indian Pallava prince turned monk named Bodhidharma (also called Daruma), believed to have lived around 550 A.D. The martial virtues of discipline, humility, restraint and respect are attributed to this philosophy.[5] Daruma is also regarded as the founder of Zen Buddhism in China. Thus the values of ethical conduct and self discipline have been intertwined with martial practice since the earliest times.[6] Also in China Buddhabhadra (called Batuo in Mandarin), an Indian dhyana master becomes the first abbot of the Shaolin temple.[7] The Shaolin Monastery was built by the Emperor Xiaowen of the Northern Wei Dynasty in AD 477.

The teaching of martial arts in Asia has historically followed the cultural traditions of teacher-disciple apprenticeship. Students are trained in a strictly hierarchical system by a master instructor: Sifu in Cantonese or Shifu in Mandarin; Sensei in Japanese; Sabeom-nim in Korean; Guru in Sanskrit, Hindi, Telugu and Malay; Kruu in Khmer; Guro in Tagalog; Kalari Gurukkal or Kalari Asaan in Malayalam; Asaan in Tamil; Achan or Khru in Thai; and Saya in Myanmar. All these terms can be translated as master, teacher or mentor.[8]"

[Tao99]

Dzogchen has different tenets. It doesn't repress much of anything...

 

I corrected my 200 year's to what I meant to put was 2000 years.

 

I've read the history of Taoism and before Buddhism it was pretty wild. More like naturism and kind of a counter Confucianism path. There were different branches.

 

Many scholars talk about how Buddhism influenced you guys. Even Shaolin Martial arts came from Bodhidharma because martial arts was Indian for thousands upon thousands of years before it was in China, supposedly the oldest form of martial arts is Indian. It just developed more in China.

 

The Tao practice was began to be formalized 4700 years ago. That's 2700 years of secret Tao cult formulation, and plenty of time to complete the Tao practice formulation 100%, without any Buddhadharma addition. It was all said and done by then for the Tao initiates of the secretive Tao cults. But China is a big place and that's a lot of time so there were many partial usage schools, phony usage schools, martial art partial knock off variations, combinational schools, popularizing schools that added some Buddhist trappings, etc., etc., That's to be expected. The public and folk manifestations were often much different then the secretive cult practice of the initiated. My ancient scriptures on this 4700 year old Tao practice have no Buddhadharma in them. And in fact it would be anathema to their Tao practice involving the Chinese 5 elements, the 7 reversion/9 restoration, dual cultivation, 3 treasures, gold pill, or the One in ancient times. All this is pure Chinese philosophy without any Buddhadharma in it. What the scholars talk about is just the public manifestations and deviations. They know nothing about the secretive cults Tao practice. And if they do and become initiated they keep their mouths shut as their school has taught them.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Tao99