Of Buddhists and Taoists

[ralis]

Vajraji attempts to convince his audience that Buddhism is the purveyor of absolute truth. However, he also claims the experience of the observer is subjective. Therefor if that is the case, the Buddha's view is subjective, and not absolute.

 

 

ralis

Edited August 18, 2009 by ralis

[Wayfarer64]

We don't have a cosmic mother or a great beginning in any literal sense. There's no beginning according to Buddhist Cosmology. No point of origin. There's not even a great spirit shared by all beings, as this is considered a Samsaric interpretation that leads to re-absorption at the end of this universe's expression.

 

 

everything and anything ever done or thought is Samsaric- so what?

 

The only constant is change in both physics and the Tao. All knowledge is a part of Taoist wisdom, there is no rejecting of truthful observances.

 

if you wish to speculate on how our universe will be in the end of time - I'll add my 2 cents here as well- there is no doctrine involved just speculation built on observation.

 

There is expansion and then contraction of our universe. Then expansion again...

 

I'll stick with the Big-bang as the KNOWN beginning of this round- if that "beginning" had an earlier cause...

One possible explanation could be that our expanding universe will eventually become a vast void of very cold molecules that have expanded and then ceased all movement.- I surmise that the collective "mind/spirit/memory" of all that occured in that expansion would actually exist as pure consciousness...

-

 

I just do not believe that "nature"- (or the harmony that exists among all that is alive and supports life...) is wasting anything!

 

So we will have pure consciousness in an unimaginably huge void of expanded molecules. The ultimate Yang and Yin- the Receptive, physical world is at its largest & coldest- no longer able to expand- and the Creative spiritual world full and omni-potent...Yet still one thing as united in a Gistaldt- (spelling!?)... my idea of what the Tao could be at one instant of cosmic time- when the cycle is at its extreme and everything is fullfilled and about to become anew... A glorious dance of life - with no suffering what so ever - for those who accept the challanges.

 

This very cold state of affairs could collapse very quickly (relative to the expansion phase)...into another cingularity...

 

This seperation of molecular energy and spiritual energy -are represented by Yin and Yang in Taoist thought. This is one reason I can say Taoist philosophy rings true (not the religion). It works for me - it is explained through natural law - not dogma.

 

Which came first in this expansion/contraction over an emmense span of eons? -Do ya care?!

Edited August 18, 2009 by Wayfarer64

[Pietro]

So what you're saying is ... anyone who doesn't think drinking water is better than arguing over it is a crank? Guess Issac Newton should have just eaten that apple.

 

There is a difference between the sciece and philosophy.

 

Let me expose it with a little story:

a phisicist goes to his dean with the plan for the next accelerometer. Cost 6 million dollars.

-Look you can't always prepare those really costly experiments. 6 million dollars. We just don't have this amount of money. Why can't you do like the mathematicians? They just need pen, paper, and garbage can. Or like the philosophers? They don't even need the garbage can!

 

[Wayfarer64]

Necessary for what, exactly? "Taoist technologies"? Don't you mean Taoist alchemists discovered several useful chemical substances, and many Chinese scientists, engineers and artists were adherents of Taoism and Zen? I doubt the yin-yang theory directly resulted in scientific discoveries any more than ancient Greek, Indian or Middle Eastern metaphysics did. That's the stuff science fiction is made of. (In fact, there really is a science fiction novel about this. Anyone remember what it's called?)

 

PS. Buddhist temples did spread education (reading & writing, classics, logic, mathematics, etc) throughout the eastern half of Asia. Does that count? During the Shogunate, over 40% of Japan was literate.

So what you're saying is ... anyone who doesn't think drinking water is better than arguing over it is a crank? Guess Issac Newton should have just eaten that apple.

 

I always assumed he did eat the apple- are they mutually exclusive!?

[Tao99]

I always assumed he did eat the apple- are they mutually exclusive!?

he said "just eat the apple" as in don't make the discovery, just eat the apple.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

Might I suggest that Sir Issac did it right. He observed a natural event, eat the apple, then formulated a theory.

 

I don't claim to know much but I will present this as a fairly sound statement: Nature is going to follow its processes regardless of what people say. When you are thirsty you drink. When you are not thirsty you normally don't drink unless you are a lush.

 

Be well!

[Wayfarer64]

Might I suggest that Sir Issac did it right. He observed a natural event, eat the apple, then formulated a theory.

 

I don't claim to know much but I will present this as a fairly sound statement: Nature is going to follow its processes regardless of what people say. When you are thirsty you drink. When you are not thirsty you normally don't drink unless you are a lush.

 

Be well!

 

 

I bet he chewed it over in his mind as he chewed his apple!!

[Marblehead]

I bet he chewed it over in his mind as he chewed his apple!!

 

Hehehe. Very good likelihood of that.

 

Be well!

[nac]

Might I suggest that Sir Issac did it right. He observed a natural event, eat the apple, then formulated a theory.

 

I don't claim to know much but I will present this as a fairly sound statement: Nature is going to follow its processes regardless of what people say. When you are thirsty you drink. When you are not thirsty you normally don't drink unless you are a lush.

 

Be well!

That's right. Don't listen to Buddhist monks who tell you not to drink anything until all the debates are over.

 

(I'm surprised anyone saw that. I inserted that line in an edit because I didn't want it to spawn meaningless quarrels. Oh well)

[Marblehead]

That's right. Don't listen to Buddhist monks who tell you not to drink anything until all the debates are over.

 

(I'm surprised anyone saw that. I inserted that line in an edit because I didn't want it to spawn meaningless quarrels. Oh well)

 

Hehehe. I'm watching. Oh, we're really not arguing or quarreling; we are simply clarifying understandings. (Yeah, sure, our egos get in there now and then too. Hehehe.)

 

Be well!

[Stigweard]

Pardon me for requoting myself:

And yet the human sphere is one of the great environments in our lives and if we are to discover harmony, peace, and productivity within our relationships we must discover the Tao within our interactions with others. It is here that virtue is the pivotal practice in Taoism and in regard to virtue we have the elucidation of Laozi when he says:

 

我有三寶持而保之

一曰慈

二曰儉

三曰不敢為天下先

 

There are three treasures

which I embrace and follow closely:

the first is to be kind;

the second is to be simple;

the third is to not put one's own importance

first in the world.

 

To be kind, compassionate and frugal in our words with each other and to embrace one another's interdependent importance and value is the path of interpersonal Tao and is the way through which we will truly be of mutual benefit.

 

Blessings

To say my Tao is better or superior than someone else's Tao or Dharma is to make distinct and give description to my Tao and therefore it is no longer the universal Tao.

 

In Taijiquan I defeat my opponent when he tenses and becomes overly defensive. By forcing him to become distinct and apparent he submits to my will and I can do with him as I please.

 

Only by being subtle, indistinct, intimately receptive to change and impartial to outcomes can I remain ungraspable and unbeatable.

 

I am happy to have my Tao being seen as gutter trash for then I avoid the unnecessary competition and tension that destroys our integral nature.

[Marblehead]

I'm trying, Stigweard, I'm trying.

 

Thanks for the reminder.

 

Be well!

[Old Man Contradiction]

With the belief that you are a buddhist, or are a taoist, or are a christian, you lose a perception of your self and instead see a belief. This is not a bad thing because that belief could bring a lot of good into this world. But at some point, we will all have to let go of our valued faith, whether it be before, or during death.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[Marblehead]

With the belief that you are a buddhist, or are a taoist, or are a christian, you lose a perception of your self and instead see a belief. This is not a bad thing because that belief could bring a lot of good into this world. But at some point, we will all have to let go of our valued faith, whether it be before, or during death.

 

Hi Old Man,

 

Yep. All is change. That is the nature of the universe.

 

Be well!

[ralis]

Hi Old Man,

 

Yep. All is change. That is the nature of the universe.

 

Be well!

 

Great point! Belief systems (isms) just further condition and create limitations to infinite possibilities.

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Great point! Belief systems (isms) just further condition and create limitations to infinite possibilities.

ralis

 

Hi Ralis,

 

Yep. I wish I didn't feel the need to label myself 'Philosophical Taoist' because it does, in the eyes of others, place artificial limits on me. I do label myself such mostly out of appriciation to the founders of Taoism (Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu) as well as to the fact that it was the philosophy that enabled me to get my life into a state of being so that I am content and at peace with myself now.

 

(But I still enjoy messing around in the real world.)

 

(To say I am a believer in nothing just sounds wierd.)

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh! But it does hold up to my scrutiny and for me that's all that matters. Hehehe.

 

Indeed, my friend. It seems the Buddhists hold the 10 ounce glass and we Taoists say "we are ocean".

 

Be well!

 

LOL! That doesn't hold up to scrutiny either as the ocean is made of individual particles and does not inherently exist either... No glass, no ocean, just infinite relativity.

 

Vajraji attempts to convince his audience that Buddhism is the purveyor of absolute truth. However, he also claims the experience of the observer is subjective. Therefor if that is the case, the Buddha's view is subjective, and not absolute.

ralis

 

Yes... his particular way of expressing the absolute truth of Buddhism was subjective. Yet, his insight into the nature of things was objective because he transcended his subjectivity by realizing directly infinite relativity.

 

So, he was able to be objective about the different places that people were at internally and teach according to their needs, thus he taught in different ways according to different capacities.

 

If you see dependent origination, your able to see right through both object and subject, including yourself as a subject.

 

You would need some meditative experience past the 4th Jhana to understand this directly.

 

 

 

 

 

This seperation of molecular energy and spiritual energy -are represented by Yin and Yang in Taoist thought. This is one reason I can say Taoist philosophy rings true (not the religion). It works for me - it is explained through natural law - not dogma.

 

Which came first in this expansion/contraction over an emmense span of eons? -Do ya care?!

 

Both Buddhist and Hindu cosmology work along that same theory. There is no first expansion/contraction. It's been going on since beginningless time... expansion, sustainment, contraction. This is deified in Hinduism through the "Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva" trinity. Buddhists though escape this endless round of universal expansion/sustaining/contraction. That most people are doomed to repeat over and over again. During the contraction, people who believe in this one spirit will merge into that one spirit, but during the next expansion, will come out ignorant of the end of the previous universe which the beginning of this one is based on. I've said this many times before in this room. What people call natural is actually just habit energy since beginningless time. Buddhists get beyond this habit energy conditioning, which is why Buddhism is not really a Religion when one see's it for what it really is, beyond it's religious aspects. It's merely a way of seeing the universe so that one can transcend it fully and totally, while remaining seemingly a part of it in full enjoyment.

 

This is why we don't reify a universal oneness or substratum, unlike every single other religion on the planet. We, unlike everyone else, don't jump into the boiling pot at the end of the universe, saying yay! Let's all be as "one"...

 

We see infinite connectivity, but we see all reifications as originating dependent upon attachment so even a universal Tao falls under this scrutiny.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

LOL! That doesn't hold up to scrutiny either as the ocean is made of individual particles and does not inherently exist either... No glass, no ocean, just infinite relativity.

 

You must be tired. You normally do better than that. Hehehe.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

You must be tired. You normally do better than that. Hehehe.

 

Be well!

 

Nope, just simplifying.

[Marblehead]

Nope, just simplifying.

 

Believe it or not I did notice that the last couple of days.

 

You know, we Taoists sometimes use the word 'infinite' on occasion. When we speak of the Mystery we sometimes say that the Mystery contains infinite possibilities. (But they are not yet manifested - once they are manifested we can talk about them.)

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

See what a Taoist would have to understand if they were to understand Buddhism, is that we as Buddhists seek liberation from the recycling oneness of Tao. The natural flow of Tao to us is just the identification with a universal habit energy that has perpetuated itself since beginningless time.

 

Thus liberation for us is liberation from this universal substance, called by many names, but is one.

 

So, we don't seek union with anything in that sense.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Edited August 19, 2009 by Stigweard

[Wayfarer64]

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Wayfarer64]

I haven't seen any teaching in either Hinduism or Taoism which actually extincts the re-absorption and re-expression phase of a being within the entire universal big crunch and big bang cycling.

 

 

That is probably because these philosophies LOVE the idea of LIFE and groove to the notion of re-absorbtion...

 

Why wouldn't one wish to remain in the dance of life? There's milk & cookies!