The Travels of Vajrahriidaya

[Vajrahridaya]

The Tao practice was began to be formalized 4700 years ago. That 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, 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, and gold pill or the One in ancient times. All this is pure Chinese philosophy without any Buddhadharma in it.

 

Ah, the whole alchemical thing, yeah we have that too with Vajrayana. It's hard to really source things as old as that sometimes. You have a lot of false assumptions surrounding Buddhadharma though.

 

I've read Opening the Dragons Gate which talks about some of those things your talking about. Also there's the Chronicles of Tao which talks about some things that I found quite interesting. I don't know, the whole Chakra thing, it all looks like cross breeding to me with the Monkey King of the winds much like Hanuman. But who knows? Lots of this stuff does come from information gathered from Celestials, or deities of various realms depending on how deeply the person meditated. Meditation itself is as old as focus, or letting go of focus, whichever form you prefer. Spacing out even and remaining in that space is a form of meditation and kids naturally do which heals the brain.

 

Buddhism is all about the view though of dependent origination without substance or a mysterious essence. Our goal is omniscience of the beginningless flow.

 

 

 

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.

 

Yes, I understand that, we are asked the same in Dzogchen and Vajrayana. That's why I just talk sutra or philosophy mainly.

[dwai]

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.

 

Er...Taoist documents date back to as far back as 2500 BCE viz, The Yellow Emperor's Classic, which is a classic Taoist medical text. It covers topics of Chi manipulation and concepts of Taiji.

 

Also, while it is true that Bodhidharma carried Indian Martial traditions to Shaolin, Taoist MA have existed long before Shaolin. In fact, traditional taoist MA have almost nothing in common with Shaolin influenced MA.

 

Taoist MA are internal and are based on the principles of Taiji and Bagua (I Ching). Shaolin MA are external (with their internal influences coming from Taoist systems, but nowhere as advanced or refined as the Taoist systems are themselves).

 

It might be true that Taoism was influenced by Buddhism. But Buddhism was influenced by Taoism too...especially Zen traditions.

 

Incidentally there is lore that seems to indicate that Lao Tzu himself was a teacher of Shakyamuni.

[Vajrahridaya]

Er...Taoist documents date back to as far back as 2500 BCE viz, The Yellow Emperor's Classic, which is a classic Taoist medical text. It covers topics of Chi manipulation and concepts of Taiji.

 

I was wondering because I read in other books that there was reference to earlier dates for Taoism than I just recently read online.

 

Also, while it is true that Bodhidharma carried Indian Martial traditions to Shaolin, Taoist MA have existed long before Shaolin. In fact, traditional taoist MA have almost nothing in common with Shaolin influenced MA.

 

Yes, I knoew that MA existed before the Bodhidharma influence. Just was saying that the Shaolin style (very popular) was influenced by Indian styles.

 

Taoist MA are internal and are based on the principles of Taiji and Bagua (I Ching). Shaolin MA are external (with their internal influences coming from Taoist systems, but nowhere as advanced or refined as the Taoist systems are themselves).

 

See, I've read before that the I-Ching might have been conjured around the 6 to 4,000 B.C. then I read that it's more like 400 B.C. Which is why it's hard to tell with such B.C. documents when reading anthropology because they all disagree with each other. All I know is that I've been using the I-Ching my entire life and it's worked the entire time perfectly in uncanny ways with divination.

 

It might be true that Taoism was influenced by Buddhism. But Buddhism was influenced by Taoism too...especially Zen traditions.

 

I don't doubt that at all. Just as Vajrayana was influenced by Bon (which coincidently? had a cosmology already similar to Buddhisms) when it arrived in Tibet.

Incidentally there is lore that seems to indicate that Lao Tzu himself was a teacher of Shakyamuni.

 

I don't know where that would come from unless of course Lao Tzu did some inter-dimensional traveling or knew how to quantum leap like Star Treks' beam me up Scotty? Which I believe is totally possible with a certain type of cultivation. But, I did hear that one time somewhere some time ago from someone? No, seriously, I do remember hearing something like that, I just can't remember the exact source and how that would be possible?

 

Someone said that Lao Tzu could have been a Pratyekabuddha? Which are those that know, but don't say much about it.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

I was wondering because I read in other books that there was reference to earlier dates for Taoism than I just recently read online.

Yes, I knoew that MA existed before the Bodhidharma influence. Just was saying that the Shaolin style (very popular) was influenced by Indian styles.

See, I've read before that the I-Ching might have been conjured around the 6 to 4,000 B.C. then I read that it's more like 400 B.C. Which is why it's hard to tell with such B.C. documents when reading anthropology because they all disagree with each other. All I know is that I've been using the I-Ching my entire life and it's worked the entire time perfectly in uncanny ways with divination.

I don't doubt that at all. Just as Vajrayana was influenced by Bon (which coincidently? had a cosmology already similar to Buddhisms) when it arrived in Tibet.

I don't know where that would come from unless of course Lao Tzu did some inter-dimensional traveling or knew how to quantum leap like Star Treks' beam me up Scotty? Which I believe is totally possible with a certain type of cultivation. But, I did hear that one time somewhere some time ago from someone? No, seriously, I do remember hearing something like that, I just can't remember the exact source and how that would be possible?

 

Someone said that Lao Tzu could have been a Pratyekabuddha? Which are those that know, but don't say much about it.

 

Ascribing a Date to old texts is hard. It is especially harder when there have been colonial/Eurocentric "scholars" whose life-goal has been to prove that Eastern literature is inferior to Western Literature (during the Colonial periods) have been responsible for ascribing the dates.

 

One such falsehood survives in mainstream academia till date, viz dating of the Rig Veda. It had been ascribed a date of 1500 BCE by German Philologist Max Muller. All intrinsic data in it (including accurate Astronomical data) show it's first mandalas being composed around 6500 BCE and the 10th Mandala around 3100 BCE (just around the start of Kali Yuga). But Academics still adhere to this old and incorrect date as if it were some gospel truth. I suspect the same is the case with dating of Chinese scriptures as well.

 

The only reason Max Muller dated Rig Veda at 1500 BCE was because of the Biblication creation date being around 4000 BCE. So, in order to not invalidate the Biblical dates and to forward the European colonialist agenda, he picked the date 1500 BCE.

 

Not to go off on a tangent...but that's the case.

 

Again, we will see similarities between Tao, Buddhism and Vedanta simply because they are fingers pointing to the same moon. There are mind-boggling parallels between Taoist scriptures and the Upanishadic literature. I intend to publish some of my humble research in this field shortly.

 

There might be differences of opinion about certain aspects, but that is because they (each tradition) approaches from a different direction (5 blind men and elephant analogy).

 

You will not find much audience for your Buddhism is best dogma here among the Bums. Taoists by nature like to go with the flow (Wu wei) and therefore might not respond to putdowns that easily. My teacher says "A Taoist (Tai chi person) can be beaten up 999 times and not respond. But the 1000th time...beware!"

[Marblehead]

My teacher says "A Taoist (Tai chi person) can be beaten up 999 times and not respond. But the 1000th time...beware!"

 

It wouldn't take that many times for this Taoist.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Again, we will see similarities between Tao, Buddhism and Vedanta simply because they are fingers pointing to the same moon.

 

Yes, but that's just not accepted in traditional Buddhism. It's accepted in traditional Advaita, but there's no support in the scriptures of Buddhism for such theory. In Buddhism, one could say that they attempt to point at the same moon, but not all of them make it there directly.

 

Your welcome to your opinion, but it's just not a Buddhist opinion. To a Buddhist, the dogma lies in thinking that they do end in the same place. That's a sort of dogma from a Buddhist perspective.

[Sunya]

Again, we will see similarities between Tao, Buddhism and Vedanta simply because they are fingers pointing to the same moon. There are mind-boggling parallels between Taoist scriptures and the Upanishadic literature. I intend to publish some of my humble research in this field shortly.

 

 

I hope you do better research than you did in your Buddhism and Vedanta quest

Edited August 7, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

All religions generally consider the universe to be an elaboration, or a manifestation, a modification of a single essence, or source, including Taoism. Buddhism seems to be the only spiritual tradition that does not. Which is why the Buddha did say that it's a new teaching and that the Buddha was most likely not taught by anybody alive on Earth at the time, because he said that this teaching did not exist on Earth at that time. Non-Buddhists want to say, oh, that part was a lie, that was not true, he never said that. But it exists in the same context that all the other teachings do that people in other religions want to believe in. The thing is, is that the Buddha was the only spiritual fore father to teach steadily for 40 years an entirely new tradition and be very clear about it largely without metaphors that could be construed in many different ways.

 

Everyone else can go ahead and be in denial and attached to their emotional excuses. If you practice well self inquiry and meditation, one will attain higher rebirths anyway and come to understand deeper in a direct sense, than they do now.

 

All the similarities between religions are there up to a point, but that point is only to the edge of Samsara. If one is to really to be free eternally, one must intuitively comprehend dependent origination and all it's ramifications.

[dwai]

I hope you do better research than you did in your Buddhism and Vedanta quest

 

Actually there is nothing wrong in my Buddhism and Vedanta quest either. It's just that some are too intellectually challenged to understand it.

[Sunya]

Actually there is nothing wrong in my Buddhism and Vedanta quest either. It's just that some are too intellectually challenged to understand it.

 

yeah like every Buddhist out there including Buddha himself.

so intellectually challenged those Buddhists are... can't even understand their own religion!

[dwai]

yeah like every Buddhist out there including Buddha himself.

so intellectually challenged those Buddhists are... can't even understand their own religion!

 

what I've seen here are not exactly "Real Buddhists" in any shape, size or form.

[nac]

what I've seen here are not exactly "Real Buddhists" in any shape, size or form.

True, speaking for myself. I try not abide by doctrine at all, only the truth as it becomes apparent to my own consciousness. It just so happens that I'm in almost complete agreement with 0-ness and Zen philosophy at the moment. The similarities and differences between various sets of doctrines, doings of religious institutions, etc are more of a curiosity to me than a direct personal interest. Eg. If the doctrinal position of "original/real Zen" turns out to be a monistic or nondualist philosophy, that doesn't mean I'll suddenly reject Sunyata. It means I'll stop being a Zennist. I'm only rejecting Sunyata if I find that Sunyata itself is incorrect/incomplete and I understand why. I have 0 faith in the opinions of masters and teachers.

Edited August 7, 2009 by nac

[Sunya]

Real Buddhists follow the teachings of the Buddha, not blindly, but at first through logical reasoning and then gaining insight beyond logic. and the Buddha taught, as time and time again we have to repeat for you Dwai, that grasping at an ultimate reality or an ultimate subject that encompasses everything is a Samsaric path. Nargarjuna said the same thing, and so does Dalai Lama as VH quoted before. so basically, Buddha, Nargarjuna, and the DL are not real Buddhists. Interesting. Who are these "Real Buddhists" ?

[nac]

Real Buddhists follow the teachings of the Buddha, not blindly, but at first through logical reasoning and then gaining insight beyond logic.

It's true that my attitude is itself derived from zen. It's like a doubled feedback loop. Zen is a philosophy that cancels itself out for the benefit of sentient beings. (or at least it's supposed to) In that sense, when I say I'm not a "real Buddhist", I mean I do not conform to what most people would usually identify as "Buddhist doctrine".

Edited August 7, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

what I've seen here are not exactly "Real Buddhists" in any shape, size or form.

 

Neither are you a true Hindu if you want to lay judgement.

 

A true Buddhist is a Buddha from one point of view. Then again, what constitutes a true Buddhist? From one point of view, I am a true Buddhist as I ascribe to the real meaning of the texts layed out by the Buddha and Buddhas since antiquity and practice that view all the time regardless of arising conditions based upon conditions (primary and secondary conditionalities), no matter what others think is being done, because that's just based upon endless limited conditions as well. I always rely on the meaning of the texts from a Dzogchen point of view. As well as integration of the initiation of the experience of Rigpa from the standpoint of the inherently empty nature of the 6 realms and 31 planes.

 

So, it seems to me that your acting from insecurity as your view of Buddhism has been debunked over and over again through both scripture and personal experience, as well as scholarly opinion.

 

Edited August 8, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

dwai, let me respond for you. "but I want to be right! I can't be wrong! Vedanta and Buddhism have to be the same. they HAVE TO! or else....or else... i have to question my beliefs... NOOOOOO"

 

[nac]

dwai, let me respond for you. "but I want to be right! I can't be wrong! Vedanta and Buddhism have to be the same. they HAVE TO! or else....or else... i have to question my beliefs... NOOOOOO"

 

Please don't act like this. To be honest, you're making me question the wholesomeness of Buddhist practice more than anything dwai has said. I also wonder if all Hindus stay decent in the face of multiple attacks like him. (Fortunately, I'm not that kind of a Buddhist. And the answer to the second one is no from personal experience, not that I've met many Hindus who are into religion.) 0-ness is not incompatible with nonduality. What it doesn't like is being permanently resolved into a more concrete "reality" such as monism or dualism, etc. It's closer to a method than a belief.

Edited August 8, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Please don't act like this. To be honest, you're making me question the wholesomeness of Buddhist practice more than anything dwai has said.

 

Dwai makes plenty of personal attacks and Michael is actually right. Also, Michael has not even really started a strong formal practice yet, though his logic and reason is pretty strong you can't hold all of Buddhism accountable to him. I would question your logic and reason.

 

What it doesn't like is being permanently resolved into a more concrete "reality" such as monism or dualism, etc. It's closer to a method than a belief.

 

This is a very nice synopsis. It doesn't resolve into a fixed view that is itself the view that is the fixation.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Dwai makes plenty of personal attacks and Michael is actually right. Also, Michael has not even really started a strong formal practice yet, though his logic and reason is pretty strong you can't hold all of Buddhism accountable to him. I would question your logic and reason.

It's a personal request. I'm begging him to keep his cool. That's all.

 

This is a very nice synopsis. It doesn't resolve into a fixed view that is itself the view that is the fixation.

I'm not sure where the fixation comes in... You might say that true Emptiness is fixed upon a perfect amount of flexibility. As in it certainly resolves into other views, but never permanently. Sitting "fixed" in Sunyatic equanimity (if such a thing is even possible) isn't going to help suffering beings. (offtopic: IMO the difference between this and nondualism -- which often comes in the form of identifying with hierarchies, superstructures and substrata -- is obvious from posts like, say: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=192)

Edited August 8, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh yeah!! I just love the new topic tags, they are sooo $%&*in' funny!!

 

It's a personal request. I'm begging him to keep his cool. That's all.

I'm not sure where the fixation comes in... You might say that true Emptiness is fixed upon a perfect amount of flexibility. As in it certainly resolves into other views, but never permanently. Sitting "fixed" in Sunyatic equanimity (if such a thing is even possible) isn't going to help suffering beings. (offtopic: IMO the difference between this and nondualism -- which often comes in the form of identifying with hierarchies, superstructures and substrata -- is obvious from posts like, say: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=192)

 

Indeed nac. I totally agree. I was talking about Vedanta, how it resolves into a fixed view that is itself the substratum of all being. It's the view that is itself the fixation in Vedanta. While the view in Buddhism is the viewless view.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

Please don't act like this. To be honest, you're making me question the wholesomeness of Buddhist practice more than anything dwai has said. I also wonder if all Hindus stay decent in the face of multiple attacks like him.

 

dude its called tough love. i'm pokin and prodding him to get him to open up and question his fixed views. and i'm not attacking him, i'm poking at his repeated patterns of clinging to a view thats been debated over for months but he won't budge. there is no 'him' that i'm attacking. there are only fixed grasping at a view (his end) and poking torwards a more thorough understanding to help dispel fantasy (from this end). this is no I and there is no Dwai. hey that rhymes!

[Vajrahridaya]

LOL! Perfect!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

According to the Spanakopita Sutra, all sentient beings are fully subsumed, ultimately, in the face of non-sentience. Duality merges with non-duality, and the sacred dakinis do the Dance of Shiva for all eternity in joyous celebration of Cosmic Mind, at long last Realized...

 

...resistance is futile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

According to the Spanakopita Sutra, all sentient beings are fully subsumed, ultimately, in the face of non-sentience. Duality merges with non-duality, and the sacred dakinis do the Dance of Shiva for all eternity in joyous celebration of Cosmic Mind, at long last Realized...

 

...resistance is futile.

.

 

LOL! Whatever...

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

LOL! Whatever...

 

 

Exactly!!! Now you're getting it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.