Why do we disagree so much?

[Old Man Contradiction]

Why is that in a place where people are trying to grow beyond the suffering of mankind, there is so much arguing and defensive attitudes? It seems almost even more so than everywhere else. What do you think is going on? I'm about to stop visiting the TaoBums, not because I want to avoid other people acting like they know it all, but because I don't want to get caught up in me acting like I know it all. As a whole, we are kind of funny.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[Vajrahridaya]

Why is that in a place where people are trying to grow beyond the suffering of mankind, there is so much arguing and defensive attitudes? It seems almost even more so than everywhere else. What do you think is going on? I'm about to stop visiting the TaoBums, not because I want to avoid other people acting like they know it all, but because I don't want to get caught up in me acting like I know it all. As a whole, we are kind of funny.

 

It's because the debate challenges deep seeded beliefs that are the reason for a persons life. So the defensiveness comes from this insecure identity. When one is challenged so deeply, one resorts to personal attacks out of frustration.

 

Debate, both inwardly and outwardly is part of the spiritual path. Personal attacking is probably not the best way to go about it though.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sloppy Zhang]

People argue and debate everywhere you go.

 

Ever been to a message board where everyone is on the same page with everything? There wind up being about three regular users and all the threads are three posts long because all the posts are "I agree." "ur so rite!" "omg I thought that same thing."

 

.................

 

Now for me personally, I try not to care as much

 

I wind up typing a whole lot of posts, but then scrapping the whole thing and not posting at all because, really, it sucks you in and is pointless in the long run. I go and do something else, or listen to some good music instead.

 

Um, now I feel that I'm rambling

 

If people want to argue, let them argue. I hope that people at least try to stick to the rule of "discuss a belief, not the person." Which sometimes can be skewed, because, as has been said, some people identify VERY strongly with a certain belief, so a comment on the belief equates to a comment on themselves from their point of view.

[Mal]

[DalTheJigsaw123]

I think this is the best forum around in the sense of the least disagreements. Many other forums I have visited and stopped visiting, seem to have endlessly so many disagreements that I had to stop visiting them. This is the only forum I continue visiting, because there is not to many disagreements as their are opinions. I love the opinions, gives you a different angle of thought. Honestly, this is one of the better forums around.

[nac]

You don't know? The closer people's opinions are, the more bitterly they argue. Human nature. Don't avoid it, rise above it.

[Old Man Contradiction]

I wind up typing a whole lot of posts, but then scrapping the whole thing and not posting at all because, really, it sucks you in and is pointless in the long run. I go and do something else, or listen to some good music instead.

 

Me three

 

Virtually every time I go to tell someone something I feel like that

 

yeah, that really long message I sent you about my what I've learned about standing practice. I deleted and retyped that thing so many times, I couldn't figure out how to make it shorter, I was trying really hard to make sure it didn't come of as if I was saying that you should stand that way but also I wanted to leave the door open just in case you wanted to try it, all while I was aware of the fact that maybe you already do this in which case I wanted to set the table for you to tell me about it.

 

next time I spend 15 minutes deciding on 3 lines of text, I'm going to log off and meditate.

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

I would first like to make a public announcement:

 

If anyone here ever thinks that I am "arguing" (disagreeing in an unrespectful manner) I ask them to call me on it.

 

Yes, I will oftentimes disagree with the opinions of others. And I fully expect others to disagree with me at times. But Hey!, this is how we refine our thoughts. It is my opinion that if we cannot express our beliefs in words that others can understand then we still have work to do.

 

I do agree that personal attacks is totally uncalled for. We each have our opinions and we each have equal rights to our own opinions.

 

I doubt that any of us will totally agree with others all the time. We each have had our own life experiences and therefore we have formed our own opinions based on these experiences.

 

I think it is important to remain open-minded and respect the opinions of others even when we disagree. And when the disagreement cannot be mediated we should, at some point, agree to disagree on the subject and move on to something else.

 

And besides, if we all agreed on everything there would be nothing more to say and this site would turn to dust.

 

Be well!

[CarsonZi]

Why do we disagree so much?

 

Because so many here would rather be "right" then be "free".

 

Love,

Carson

[Marblehead]

Because so many here would rather be "right" then be "free".

 

Love,

Carson

 

You're right Carson!

 

 

Be well!

[nac]

Because so many here would rather be "right" then be "free".

I know I would, but only if I'm certain that my "right" is really correct, even when I'm being fully open-minded. That is, I wouldn't settle for agnosticism where 2+2=4 is concerned, but I'll always remain open-minded just in case I'm wrong about it.

[CarsonZi]

I know I would, but only if I'm certain that my "right" is really correct, even when I'm being fully open-minded. That is, I wouldn't settle for agnosticism where 2+2=4 is concerned, but I'll always remain open-minded just in case I'm wrong about it.

 

Hi nac.....

 

What is "Right" and what is "Wrong" is individual. There is no universal "right and wrong". Better to let go of trying to tell others what is "right or wrong" for them, when truly only they themselves can Know this. When you can let go of needing to judge things as right or wrong you can truly be free.

 

Love,

Carson

Edited August 11, 2009 by CarsonZi

[mYTHmAKER]

With a name like Old Man Contradiction what can you expect LOL

[dwai]

Why is that in a place where people are trying to grow beyond the suffering of mankind, there is so much arguing and defensive attitudes? It seems almost even more so than everywhere else. What do you think is going on? I'm about to stop visiting the TaoBums, not because I want to avoid other people acting like they know it all, but because I don't want to get caught up in me acting like I know it all. As a whole, we are kind of funny.

 

The problem is that different "systems" are different perspectives into the same Infinity. So each has a limited view into it, which gets further limited when they try to describe it. As a result, we (due the conditioning from our limited view) think that our view is the "Only" view or the "Best" view. Therefore, when two or more such parties enter a discussion, naturally disagreement follows. In the process, the means becomes the end and the end is completely lost.

[nac]

What is "Right" and what is "Wrong" is individual. There is no universal "right and wrong". Better to let go of trying to tell others what is "right or wrong" for them, when truly only they themselves can Know this. When you can let go of needing to judge things as right or wrong you can truly be free.

 

Love,

Carson

Nope, there is no universality in regard to right and wrong. Some truths are universal while some are not and most are mixed. With respect, if someone else thinks 2+2=5, it's my duty (for my benefit and theirs) to explain my reasoning and find out if I was wrong or the result really is different for others. (assuming either of us are close to being correct...) Whether it's a matter of subjective opinion or simply delusion, which is important knowledge in itself. I wouldn't do this with an unwilling opponent or with someone who seems unlikely to admit his mistakes, if any. I don't want to be free of opinions, etc. I want the world to be as delusion-free as possible.

 

For instance, I think the above is just a subjective opinion, and I wouldn't dream of forcing someone else to acknowledge that this is the only way of going about it.

Edited August 12, 2009 by nac

[CarsonZi]

Nope, there is no universality in regard to right and wrong. Some truths are universal while some are not and most are mixed. With respect, if someone else thinks 2+2=5, it's my duty (for my benefit and theirs) to explain my reasoning and find out if I was wrong or the result really is different for others. (assuming either of us are close to being correct...) Whether it's a matter of subjective opinion or simply delusion, which is important knowledge in itself. I wouldn't do this with an unwilling opponent or with someone who seems unlikely to admit his mistakes, if any. I don't want to be free of opinions, etc. I want the world to be as delusion-free as possible.

 

For instance, I think the above is just a subjective opinion, and I wouldn't dream of forcing someone else to acknowledge that this is the only way of going about it.

 

 

Hi nac....

 

I have no desire to argue with you, nor to prove my personal experience to you, but I will quote the Buddha (although I am not a "Buddhist"):

"Nothing in Life is certain except that death is never partial".

Meaning NOTHING (not even what you believe to be Universal "rights and wrongs") is certain. 1+1=3 (or 1 depending on how you look at it....definitely not 2 though) when you put sperm and egg together. NOTHING is absolute. There are no universal rights and wrongs. Everything is individual. Losing the "judgements" while Knowing yourSelf as the inner silent awareness will give you the freedom to realize this for yourself.

 

Love,

Carson

Edited August 12, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Magitek]

Because so many here would rather be "right" then be "free".

 

Love,

Carson

 

Good point.

 

I have said many things forcefully but I would readily go back on them.

 

All the writings left here are just dead thought. They really do not correspond to the living beings behind the computers.

 

At some point, maybe even as late as on the deathbed, we will have to give it up.

 

So right now we are just bickering like children. Thats what this place is for right?

[CarsonZi]

So right now we are just bickering like children. Thats what this place is for right?

 

Maybe for some....not for me.

 

Love,

Carson

[Marblehead]

Maybe for some....not for me.

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

Hi Carson,

 

I'm with you.

 

I do love a good discussion though.

 

Be well!

[CarsonZi]

Hi Carson,

 

I'm with you.

 

I do love a good discussion though.

 

Be well!

 

Hi Marblehead....

 

For many many years of my life my path to liberation was "dialectic conversation". I find silence much more liberating now

 

Love,

Carson

[Marblehead]

Hi Marblehead....

 

For many many years of my life my path to liberation was "dialectic conversation". I find silence much more liberating now

 

Love,

Carson

 

That's wu wei, I guess. There is a time to talk and there is a time to shut up.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi nac....

 

I have no desire to argue with you, nor to prove my personal experience to you, but I will quote the Buddha (although I am not a "Buddhist"):

"Nothing in Life is certain except that death is never partial".

Meaning NOTHING (not even what you believe to be Universal "rights and wrongs") is certain. 1+1=3 (or 1 depending on how you look at it....definitely not 2 though) when you put sperm and egg together. NOTHING is absolute. There are no universal rights and wrongs. Everything is individual. Losing the "judgements" while Knowing yourSelf as the inner silent awareness will give you the freedom to realize this for yourself.

 

Love,

Carson

 

This is exactly why there is no cosmic essence. There is only infinite potentiality. Not concrete Self, no true nature of all things, except that it's all dependently originated and inherently empty of static being. Even the experience of timelessness is merely a state of focus based upon opposing the state of time and removing awareness of concepts and those identities thus suppressing for a timeless moment the experience of multitudeness, which is not the same as the non-duality of Buddhism. There is only relativity and emptiness. Emptiness does not mean the meditative void, as that's explained as a Jhana or Samadhi in Buddhism and the realization of emptiness transcends all states of absorption and non-absorption. There is no true formless reality that shines from it's own side as an absolute, that's merely a state of focus and is also dependently originated and empty of inherent independent existence. Though the fact that all is inherently empty leads to the realization of non-duality, in a different context, thus there is a different way that one actualizes the experience through the specifics allocated through Buddhist wisdom and method.

 

If Tao just means the constant impermanence of mutual co-arising experiences and things, and non-things, without true pin-pointable nature, then that's the dharma. But there seems to be descriptions of the Tao as some formless and absolute reality that is beyond the senses and concepts that all things find identity in. That would merely lead to recycling at the end of a cosmic eon as that's a subtle type of formless clinging to or absorption into an, "I AM THAT" as a static essential nature of all things. Saying that oneness is absolute truth. As if all things were the modification of one essential substance beyond concepts..

 

Buddhism points to a truth subtler than this. Sometimes I think Taoism does then other times I don't. Of course one can never know how one experiences concepts internally on a deeply transcendent state speaking of the Immortals. But, Buddhism seems to describe this and have methodology that realizes this directly in a way that is streamlined and clear since the first turning of the wheel, through to the 4th (Dzogchen) that does not appear in other traditions as if the realization is indeed different. But, there seem to be those lineages within Taoism that lead to the same realization of Jalus as it is in Dzogchen. But is the motivation total compassion and service towards the endless mis-apprehension of Samsaric co-creation? Or is it selfish for, "me"? This would change whether it would be a ongoing realization of "no-self" or not, thus merely appearing the same but not really the same realization at all.

 

?

 

One after the truth of the nature of all things, inquires about the nuances from a perspective even beyond the expression of the question as thought formulations, that seem sticky and semantic, but it's deeper than this... this form of questioning.

[Marblehead]

But then in Taoism this 'infinite potentiality' is called Mystery. Yes, we Taoists have that. But, lucky we Taoists, we also have the Manifest. The real, concrete, physical world. We get to run and play and smell the roses and break each others' heart and all kinds of really neat things.

 

Poor Buddhists. Locked up in the Mystery, eternally 'infinite potentiality' but never manifesting. Kinda' like a chicken egg that never cracks open to give life. Oh well.

 

Be well!

[Sunya]

But then in Taoism this 'infinite potentiality' is called Mystery. Yes, we Taoists have that. But, lucky we Taoists, we also have the Manifest. The real, concrete, physical world. We get to run and play and smell the roses and break each others' heart and all kinds of really neat things.

 

Poor Buddhists. Locked up in the Mystery, eternally 'infinite potentiality' but never manifesting. Kinda' like a chicken egg that never cracks open to give life. Oh well.

 

Be well!

 

a Buddha realizes the three bodies, very roughly its: Dharmakaya (could be equated to unmanifest), Sambhogakaya (energy), and Nirmanakaya (physical).

 

Buddhists are not obsessed with the Dharmakaya, because the 3 kayas are interdependent, one cannot exist without the other, the Dharmakaya is not the true source and the Nirmanakaya is not ignored. 3 kayas have to be integrated for true realization. in fact, there is no unmanifest separate from the manifest. because all the Kayas are empty, they lack inherent existence.

 

and there is no mystery in Buddhism, at least for a Buddha since the mark of a Buddha is total omniscience.

Edited August 13, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

But then in Taoism this 'infinite potentiality' is called Mystery. Yes, we Taoists have that. But, lucky we Taoists, we also have the Manifest. The real, concrete, physical world. We get to run and play and smell the roses and break each others' heart and all kinds of really neat things.

 

Poor Buddhists. Locked up in the Mystery, eternally 'infinite potentiality' but never manifesting. Kinda' like a chicken egg that never cracks open to give life. Oh well.

 

Be well!

 

Wow, you certainly have some squared up assumptions.

 

We experience incredible sex, have great fun, dance, there are even consorts that became Buddhas by understanding experientially the view of dependent origination and emptiness, thus spontaneous liberation in every moment of experiencing. The tenet system of the first turning as in the Theravada view are disciplines for those that don't have the capacity to understand much deeper, and this statement might stir some ego's who might read this. If you think Buddha's teaching is that limited my dear? You haven't read from any of the 84 Mahasiddhas, which even includes a Butcher. But yeah, if one is truly a Buddha, no broken heart because of a lack of attachment to identity and a complete vision of that see's transience as transparent. So what comes comes and what goes, goes.

 

Buddhist Cosmology and teaching is far more complex than you have considered. There are many systems of teaching for different types of people. The Buddha Shakyamuni himself taught in many different ways and gave different types of disciplines for different people at different stages of personal evolution, or just because of individual differences. There's 84,000 different ways of teaching that seem contradictory in the entire Buddhist Cannon in fact, but only because of the different types of people.

 

The state of realization transcends any limitations, your even allowed to have orgies with other highly realized beings, or anybody really if the intention is an offering. Orgies with other highly realized beings have a specific intention that is not only the blessing of great fun, but also to intermingle the highest unlimited realization with previous limitations of conduct that might be enlodged deep in a persons subconscious due to having gone through different limiting tenet systems or religious systems, it's individual and complex. Actually enlightenment inherently has nothing to do with any limitations of conduct, these are just practices and disciplines used to re-orient a persons interpretation of the energy of expression and experience. Which is something Westerners have a hard time with when all of a sudden some great being had sex with someone, or ate some meat, they freak out, and this is only due to the limited view these people have by defining enlightenment by superficial boundaries.

 

Those that mix up the tenets of the different systems of Buddhadharma don't understand co-dependent origination.

 

Dzogchenpa's especially don't have any such limitations and in fact as long as Rigpa, or awareness of emptiness nature of all relativity has been initiated in one, this state can be integrated with any arising experience or desire, thus turning any experience from selfish to selfless regardless of it's appearance. Once the true nature of things is known directly, one has absolutely no limitations in conduct.. per say. Of course, one will still act with virtue (relative to the moment and not contrived virtue) and love for all beings, so becoming a serial killer or hit man is most likely not going to be included in the possible job list of a Dzogchenpa. But... really these conditions of limitation that are used in lower tenet systems originate dependent upon the necessity of beings with a certain capacity that requires limitation for the sake of re-orientation.

 

 

and there is no mystery in Buddhism, at least for a Buddha since the mark of a Buddha is total omniscience.

 

Omniscience in Buddhism doesn't mean knowing every particular thing that's ever happened and that will happen, rather they understand how all things happen and how experience happens on an intuitive experiential level. So, this is different from the Western interpretation of omniscience.

 

Though a Buddha can indeed close his or her eyes and see through time and space on a quantum leaping level if so necessary. One can not really sneak up on a Buddha either, or trick a Buddha, unless they want to let it happen, just for the play of it... for whatever reason within infinite relativity.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Vajrahridaya