Who Is the Lord/God in the Tao Te Ching?

[nac]

There we go: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=92265

 

Let's find out.

[Vajrahridaya]

There we go: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=92265

 

Let's find out.

 

Very well...

 

Lets link this thread up to that thread.

[Li TaoRen]

Wu yes. Wuji yes. Wuji is very misunderstood, as is the Buddhas emptiness, as many people mistake it for nothingness. Tao and Dharma- you may have something there. I know Dharma has multiple meanings as well, but in a broad sense I would agree. Tao has many facets. If we are talking about spirituality it is explained one way, in medicine the meaning may differ, martial arts as well. People focus in on an aspect relevant to their pursuits. Really, Tao is understood through contemplation. You could talk to 100 people, even experts and they would define Tao differently. Tao is a paradox, it is duality, yet non-duality simultaneously. Yin and Yang, Yang within yin and vice versa.So Tao is the D.O of all things from the state of Wuji, or emptiness

It's the limits of language. Since dependently originated things are not inherently established in and of themselves and only relative, than neither is the explanation of dependent origination. D.O. is merely an explanation of how things work and not a thing in and of itself, so the concept of dependent origination originates dependently and is thus not inherently existent.

 

Your not familiar with Nagarjuna are you?

 

Anyway, since dependent origination is speaking of the co-dependency of mutually arising things and experiences, nothing really inherent exists on it's own, thus nothing truly arises, only seemingly so, as an apparition of co-emergents. Like looking into a solid object with a powerful microscope and finding movement of atomic particles that are themselves based on subtler and subtler particles and then finding more empty space than thing itself. Bohm's holographic universe comes to mind.

 

Thanks officer for making me unpack.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what certain Taoist concepts mean experientially in order to possibly come to that realization that they do both indeed lead to the same realization. I don't know if that will happen in a board like this where different types of Taoism are represented and each type is quite different. Just that the description of A natural Law or Term such as "Tao" which is an experience that can be unpacked using an endless assortment of metaphors, it behooves one to come to an understanding of what the metaphors are meaning experientially by knowing the words that are being used, even if the words are faulty English translations of Chinese characters. My stepmom is Chinese and can speak Chinese but she can't read it. So, she's no help.

 

I don't know if Tao can equate with emptiness, it more equates I think with the term Dharma. Tao = The Way, and Dharma = Path or in certain contexts... Natural Law. Enlightenment in Taoism is considered, knowing the Tao beyond words, and in Buddhism a Buddha knows the Dharma beyond words.

 

My Taoist/Dzogchen friend Chris said that there is the concept of emptiness in Taoism, and it might be the term "Wu"?

[Vajrahridaya]

Wu yes. Wuji yes. Wuji is very misunderstood, as is the Buddhas emptiness, as many people mistake it for nothingness. Tao and Dharma- you may have something there. I know Dharma has multiple meanings as well, but in a broad sense I would agree. Tao has many facets. If we are talking about spirituality it is explained one way, in medicine the meaning may differ, martial arts as well. People focus in on an aspect relevant to their pursuits. Really, Tao is understood through contemplation. You could talk to 100 people, even experts and they would define Tao differently. Tao is a paradox, it is duality, yet non-duality simultaneously. Yin and Yang, Yang within yin and vice versa.So Tao is the D.O of all things from the state of Wuji, or emptiness

 

Indeed, more and more I'm starting to find out the co-relations between Taoism and Vajrayana. It's quite amazing and exciting actually. I'm having new revelations about Taoism through this board. It's so nice.

 

Dharma also just means, the way, or the way about doing that, the way about doing this, or the best way to do something. Like, that's dharmic or adharmic. As in, the dharmic way to do something means, to do something with the entire cosmos in your mind. Like if you were to go to school, make your approach dharmic, as in for the benefit of beings and to make it non-selfish. Also in a way that flows. Because if one is referencing the whole in one's actions and thought, then your movement is in conjunction with the way the universe is moving. So yeah, Dharma means The Way that the universe works and if your one with the way the universe works, then you are in a space of benefit, both for you and for all you come into contact with, which of course chain reacts and the butterfly effect happens.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

How did this thread again become yet another tiresome Buddhist debate? The topic is the Tao Te Ching. Why does every thread turn into Buddhist discourse? It's really annoying!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited August 15, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Marblehead]

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 15, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Let's not get distracted now This here is our point of agreement:

Dharma also just means, the way, or the way about doing that, the way about doing this, or the best way to do something. Like, that's dharmic or adharmic. As in, the dharmic way to do something means, to do something with the entire cosmos in your mind. Like if you were to go to school, make your approach dharmic, as in for the benefit of beings and to make it non-selfish. Also in a way that flows. Because if one is referencing the whole in one's actions and thought, then your movement is in conjunction with the way the universe is moving. So yeah, Dharma means The Way that the universe works and if your one with the way the universe works, then you are in a space of benefit, both for you and for all you come into contact with, which of course chain reacts and the butterfly effect happens.

Let us rejoice in the concordance and union of views. No more needs to be said I feel.

 

And if you are leaving let us share tea before you go...

 

 

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

After so many posts, people haven't understood the meaning of my posts and have ascribed meanings that did not actually exist in the posts, but were construed based on mis-interpretation of my word formulations. Which is a revelation of the subjective nature of mind, that definition originates dependent upon view. Again another revelation of the truth that the Buddha taught, that there is no ultimate reality, only relativity.

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, don't blame us if you can't write clearly enough for others to understand!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited August 15, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Marblehead]

If that truly is the notion of Tao, than it has no co-relation with the notion of Dharma in Buddhism. Also, if that really is what is related to as ultimate reality for Taoism, than Buddhism and Taoism have entirely different cosmological conclusions. This conclusion of an ultimate reality that shines from it's own side, that is a singularity that all things arise from, would be scrutinized by the Buddha as merely being a reification of a formless realm meditation.

 

So, sadly... I have to go back to feeling that Buddhism is indeed the only path on the planet that leads to complete eradication of the seeds of unconscious rebirth.

 

After so many posts, people haven't understood the meaning of my posts and have ascribed meanings that did not actually exist in the posts, but were construed based on mis-interpretation of my word formulations. Which is a revelation of the subjective nature of mind, that definition originates dependent upon view. Again another revelation of the truth that the Buddha taught, that there is no ultimate reality, only relativity.

 

Be beautiful in your multiplicity!!

 

And who do you blame if you are not understood? If you point the finger at me remember that there are three fingers pointing back at you.

 

To The Tao though. Regarding what you said. I suggest that you look at how life bagan on this planet. It started with one single cell organism that had the ability of replicating itself. As it replicated an occasional mutation resulted. Thus began the evolution of life.

 

If we consider the 'big bang' we see the same thing.

 

So why is it hard for you to believe what was said concerning all things emerging from Tao?

 

Sometimes your logic isn't very logical.

 

Be well!

[doc benway]

The moon is different. The Moon in Buddhism is not some non-conceptual void, or a state of being that is beyond time and space. Our realization is reflected in the intellectual expressions, and it is different. In Buddhism, the truth is not just a state of mind that is stripped of concepts that we integrate the rest of our day with.

 

In most schools, all things are modifications of one substance and in Buddhism, all things are co-dependently created, sustained and destroyed by and are of infinite mind-streams that are all inherently empty of substance since beginngless time. There is not a source of existence, there is not a fullness of being that was before the universe. There is not a one being that we will all merge into at the end of the universal expression. There is not a single creator of all things that we are expressions of. It's not just semantics. The inner realization is a different Truth of the cosmos.

 

Realizing the state of Buddahood is not the same as being one with Shiva, or being one with the light of the universe, or realizing the one substance that all things are.

 

The Buddha actually pointed to an entirely different moon. He defined the Truth of existence differently through words, not because it's a truth that's beyond words that all rivers lead to, but because it's actually an entirely different ocean on a different planet in a different solar system, in a different universe. Just to use a metaphor.

 

Take care.

It is simply the arrogance of human thought which creates a moon for each viewpoint.

The thought will never be the thing and yet they truly are one and the same.

Nevertheless, try drinking the word water for one week.

Buddha did not define the Truth of existence through words.

He saw the Truth through meditation and did his best to help others reach a similar level of experience.

It is the scholars who came after that made the error of becoming attached to the words.

Peace

[Marblehead]

It is simply the arrogance of human thought which creates a moon for each viewpoint.

The thought will never be the thing and yet they truly are one and the same.

Nevertheless, try drinking the word water for one week.

Buddha did not define the Truth of existence through words.

He saw the Truth through meditation and did his best to help others reach a similar level of experience.

It is the scholars who came after that made the error of becoming attached to the words.

Peace

 

Hi Steve,

 

That is where I have my problem when talking with someone about a belief system or religion. The use of all the abstract words throws a veil over the subject making it even more difficult to understand.

 

Yes. Earth has only one moon. But we each have our own personal experience of that moon. There is no 'absolute experience' that everyone is supposed to have else they are wrong. Life just doesn't work that way.

 

I agree, the thought will never be the object. But I sure like the thought of the image of that beautiful woman I saw yesterday when I was out shopping. True, my thought and the image my mind created is not the woman - it is only the remembrence of the event now long past. Am I living in the past when I remember past events? I don't think so but then others would say I am in that lingering thoughts on the past will prevent us from living the moment to its fullest.

 

Be well!

[ralis]

Hey, don't blame us if you can't write clearly!

.

 

 

I provided links to several books (Strunk and White) with the hope that Vajra would read and learn to write more clearly. Vajra's writing is an attempt to impress on his audience that he is some sort of scholar.

 

The syntax of his writing needs much improvement.

 

 

ralis

 

Hi Steve,

 

That is where I have my problem when talking with someone about a belief system or religion. The use of all the abstract words throws a veil over the subject making it even more difficult to understand.

 

Yes. Earth has only one moon. But we each have our own personal experience of that moon. There is no 'absolute experience' that everyone is supposed to have else they are wrong. Life just doesn't work that way.

 

I agree, the thought will never be the object. But I sure like the thought of the image of that beautiful woman I saw yesterday when I was out shopping. True, my thought and the image my mind created is not the woman - it is only the remembrence of the event now long past. Am I living in the past when I remember past events? I don't think so but then others would say I am in that lingering thoughts on the past will prevent us from living the moment to its fullest.

 

Be well!

 

Vajra uses abstractions and paraphrases from books he has read instead of speaking from experience. For example, if one analyzes his use of the term non dualism, then one will see he contradicts what the real definition is. Non dualism means unity with no separation i.e, oneness.

 

 

ralis

Edited August 16, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Hey, don't blame us if you can't write clearly enough for others to understand!

.

 

I don't think it's my writing because if you can't understand Xabir, or Michaelz either. Then it's more something wrong with the readers. Also, if other people can understand who have commented on the fact that they understand, then it's definitely not the writer who's at fault, because these others that have gained understanding reveal that there is clarity to be seen in the writings of the above mentioned, including poor, ol' convoluted me.

 

I provided links to several books (Strunk and White) with the hope that Vajra would read and learn to write more clearly. Vajra's writing is an attempt to impress on his audience that he is some sort of scholar.

 

The syntax of his writing needs much improvement.

ralis

Vajra uses abstractions and paraphrases from books he has read instead of speaking from experience. For example, if one analyzes his use of the term non dualism, then one will see he contradicts what the real definition is. Non dualism means unity with no separation i.e, oneness.

ralis

 

No ralis,

 

I use my own experience to compliment the books that I have read, or vice versa. Also, yes, non-dualism has different meanings in different traditions and literally mean's "not-two", you know? "non-dual?", which only implies absolute oneness if you were to consider the opposite of "not-two" as the definition. But, "not-two" also implies... maybe it's 3, or 5, or infinite qualifyability.

 

How high is your IQ?

 

I provided links to several books (Strunk and White) with the hope that Vajra would read and learn to write more clearly. Vajra's writing is an attempt to impress on his audience that he is some sort of scholar.

 

The syntax of his writing needs much improvement.

ralis

 

 

No, the limiting conditions of your pre-conceptualizing mind need a toilet. :lol:

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist, or rather I didn't want to.

 

I am not a scholar, as that would pretty much mean that I have a doctorate in a particular discipline of study.

 

It is simply the arrogance of human thought which creates a moon for each viewpoint.

The thought will never be the thing and yet they truly are one and the same.

Nevertheless, try drinking the word water for one week.

Buddha did not define the Truth of existence through words.

He saw the Truth through meditation and did his best to help others reach a similar level of experience.

It is the scholars who came after that made the error of becoming attached to the words.

Peace

 

Tell me steve? Have you read the Nikaya? I guess he was arrogant as he said one of the wrong views was that there was an omnipresent Self that is sensitive to the ripening of good and bad deeds that is everlasting, and eternal. So, basically he taught that the Upanishadic Self was a wrong view. His teaching clearly transcended eternalism. I'm sorry if your mind is not subtle enough to grasp the truth's laid out clearly by the Buddha and instead you fall for the arrogant all consuming view that all paths must lead to the same objective, in a hope to make yourself feel better. Yes, his state of consciousness realized the uncompounded nature of all things.

 

He also said that the realization is the Dharma. Anyway... I could go on and on but you wouldn't read with any sense of objectivity as your already convinced of the lie that you hold as Truth.

 

I won't waste my finger power.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I don't think it's my writing because if you can't understand Xabir, or Michaelz either. Then it's more something wrong with the readers. Also, if other people can understand who have commented on the fact that they understand, then it's definitely not the writer who's at fault, because these others that have gained understanding reveal that there is clarity to be seen in the writings of the above mentioned, including poor, ol' convoluted me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it's your writing. Definitely not clear or cogent. I can usually understand Xabir and Michaelz just fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

And who do you blame if you are not understood? If you point the finger at me remember that there are three fingers pointing back at you.

 

To The Tao though. Regarding what you said. I suggest that you look at how life bagan on this planet. It started with one single cell organism that had the ability of replicating itself. As it replicated an occasional mutation resulted. Thus began the evolution of life.

 

If we consider the 'big bang' we see the same thing.

 

So why is it hard for you to believe what was said concerning all things emerging from Tao?

 

Sometimes your logic isn't very logical.

 

Be well!

 

Thats all it seems on the surface, but the conditions there-in which scientists are still regressing more and more into find their causes as an effect based upon a previous cosmos, or a previous universe. There is no causeless cause, so you see what seems logical on the surface is deemed superficial when looked at from a deeper vantage point. You can enter into that single cell organism and find a whole multitude of conditions for it's multiplying.

 

You will find many examples to support the view that we all come from one and will return to one, as that one is the all consumer, the holder of the cycle of Samsara. That which the Buddha taught transcendence of in no uncertain terms. He didn't just teach one how to be free for the interim during the expression of a universe from a seeming oneness, to only return blissfully to this oneness, only to be part of the potentiality for the next ignorant experiences to befall one in the next coming cosmic eon.

 

There are conditions latent in the singularity that only seem as a one, due to the fact of no arising secondary causes to allow the ripening of potential to actually manifest. The realization of dependent origination is not really a whole bunch of concepts, though that's all we have to express through here, it's much subtler. It takes a mind that is willing to investigate, no holds barred, what seems natural. As cycling seems quite natural. So, then the Buddha's teachings help a person to transcend nature.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

I won't waste my finger power.

 

 

 

 

yesssss!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

yesssss!

.

 

HA!! Only in that moment did I loose inspiration... Who knows for the future as I merely follow inspiration and it's joyful excursions it facilitates.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

HA!! Only in that moment did I loose inspiration... Who knows for the future as I merely follow inspiration and it's joyful excursions it facilitates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noooooo!!!!!! Please? C'mon, you said you would...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Yes. Earth has only one moon. But we each have our own personal experience of that moon. There is no 'absolute experience' that everyone is supposed to have else they are wrong. Life just doesn't work that way.

 

The Buddhas point exactly, which is why even an experience transcending the concept talking about an experience of a pre-existing wholeness that is eternal and static as well as in motion, described within all the variables of paradox, is considered empty by designation of dependent origination. Therefore, for Buddhism, liberation is not an experience (something I've mentioned over and over again), but rather the recognition that all levels of experience and experiencing, as well as the concepts pointing to experiences, are inherently empty and originate dependently. That also there was no beginning, and that oneness at the beginning of the big bang, was suppressed potentiality left over from the big crunch of the universe before and it's based upon the collective consensual mind states all in agreement that they are of one source and one essence and that they should blissfully do away with form and merge into formless singularity of potentiality. But, what Buddhism teaches is how to become free from this never ending and never beginning cycle of merging into a oneness at the end of the expression of form. Buddhas teaching of dependent origination actually subverts the calling of the mystery, it actually quits the calling to merge into a singularity that becomes the potential for the next coming universe even after this one goes through it's big crunch. So, Buddhism transcends the logic that makes itself abundantly clear that it is natural through how the galaxies are really one star expressing many planets, only to explode and reabsorb all this back into a single potentiality to be many once again in another way. Buddhahood is freedom from that cycle. It's not the surrendering to it.

Edited August 16, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

I don't think it's my writing because if you can't understand Xabir, or Michaelz either. Then it's more something wrong with the readers. Also, if other people can understand who have commented on the fact that they understand, then it's definitely not the writer who's at fault, because these others that have gained understanding reveal that there is clarity to be seen in the writings of the above mentioned, including poor, ol' convoluted me.

No ralis,

 

I use my own experience to compliment the books that I have read, or vice versa. Also, yes, non-dualism has different meanings in different traditions and literally mean's "not-two", you know? "non-dual?", which only implies absolute oneness if you were to consider the opposite of "not-two" as the definition. But, "not-two" also implies... maybe it's 3, or 5, or infinite qualifyability.

 

How high is your IQ?

No, the limiting conditions of your pre-conceptualizing mind need a toilet. :lol:

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist, or rather I didn't want to.

 

I am not a scholar, as that would pretty much mean that I have a doctorate in a particular discipline of study.

Tell me steve? Have you read the Nikaya? I guess he was arrogant as he said one of the wrong views was that there was an omnipresent Self that is sensitive to the ripening of good and bad deeds that is everlasting, and eternal. So, basically he taught that the Upanishadic Self was a wrong view. His teaching clearly transcended eternalism. I'm sorry if your mind is not subtle enough to grasp the truth's laid out clearly by the Buddha and instead you fall for the arrogant all consuming view that all paths must lead to the same objective, in a hope to make yourself feel better. Yes, his state of consciousness realized the uncompounded nature of all things.

 

He also said that the realization is the Dharma. Anyway... I could go on and on but you wouldn't read with any sense of objectivity as your already convinced of the lie that you hold as Truth.

 

I won't waste my finger power.

 

 

Dualism is defined by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

 

My IQ is high enough for Mensa.

 

Your writing contains a paradox. You use the term uncompounded as the nature of all things and how do you reconcile that with non dualism? Contradiction?

 

What does qualifyability mean? The Oxford dictionary contains no such word.

 

 

ralis

Edited August 16, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

No, it's your writing. Definitely not clear or cogent. I can usually understand Xabir and Michaelz just fine.

.

 

Well, we are saying the same thing... then if that style of expression appeals to you... find out what I'm talking about there. Ignore me as it seems to bring you so much suffering to read me. Though, I think as of right now, it's giving you reasons to speak and type. To start threads of insult. Which are oh so much fun anyway! It gives you a place to practice your sarcasm too. Right?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Well, we are saying the same thing... then if that style of expression appeals to you... find out what I'm talking about there. Ignore me as it seems to bring you so much suffering to read me. Though, I think as of right now, it's giving you reasons to speak and type. To start threads of insult. Which are oh so much fun anyway! It gives you a place to practice your sarcasm too. Right?

 

 

 

 

Right!

 

I'm, glad you find my threads fun! (unless you're being sarcastic). I'll keep the clever riposte coming!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dualism is defined by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism

 

My IQ is high enough for Mensa.

 

Your writing contains a paradox. You use the term uncompounded as the nature of all things and how do you reconcile that with non dualism. Contradiction?

ralis

 

Only to your mind. The nature of things are unarisen, as they are inherently empty, because they are dependently originated there is no static essence that things spring from, as they neither arise from themselves or really from another as the other is also inherently empty, so to understand the nature of all things in one moment de-compounds that awareness which is both arising due to the condition and liberating out of the condition due to recognition of the condition of the condition, as in de-conditions, as in, see's through the endless chain of causation for being and self liberates upon recognition in each moment of the realization of the unarisen nature of things. Read the master of logic Nagarjuna a bit and get some clues. So that paradox does into cause a kind of explosion as both sides cancel each other out, neither one, and not-two... which is what non-dualism means in Buddhism. Not the same as the Vedantin... all is one (monism) type of non-dualism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism Why don't you read this a bit...

 

For a Buddhist, we are not-two due to lack of inherent substance, and according to Taoism and Vedanta, we are not-two, due to the fact of a single substance that we all essentially are.

 

So, there is a difference Mr. Mensa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right!

 

I'm, glad you find my threads fun! (unless you're being sarcastic). I'll keep the clever riposte coming!

.

 

No, they were indeed fun at first, and sometimes still are. But, only in a kind of sad way...

 

I'm actually practicing for my future scholastic carrier. I don't know what your doing? Finding pleasure in the expense of another? Or in the hopes that I will feel so hurt as to run away crying to my mommy maybe? She does live right up the street now that I've moved back to Florida from NYC. I'm sorry... it won't happen. I was a bicycle taxi driver in midtown Manhattan for 5 years. There is nothing you could say that could really make me feel like a total amoeba.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

The nature of things are unarisen, as they are inherently empty, because they are dependently originated there is no static essence that things spring from, as they neither arise from themselves or really from another as the other is also inherently empty, so to understand the nature of all things in one moment de-compounds that awareness which is both arising due to the condition and liberating out of the condition due to recognition of the condition of the condition, as in de-conditions, as in, see's through the endless chain of causation for being and self liberates upon recognition in each moment of the realization of the unarisen nature of things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah! What he said!...um...what?

 

 

 

 

.Dude, uh, Sir, with all due respect, if you are intent on an a future scholastic 'carrier' [sic], the above referenced sentence will not get you far. Besides, I thought you said in another post that you thought academic degrees were worthless, or something like that? And now academia? Which is it?

Edited August 16, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth