Of Buddhists and Taoists

[Vajrahridaya]

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!

 

Oh... we remain in it, there's nothing else. We do manifest a pure realm where we usher beings into a place beyond the conditioned universe where the manifestations are based upon the unconditioned consciousness of a Buddha and endless merit accumulations, where beings can experience freedom and the teachings in a state of free, unattached bliss.

 

But, we also through the realization of our Dharmakaya body, project through our merit energy body of Sambhogakaya, endless gross merit bodies or Nirmanakaya's into endless Samsaric realms, much like the Dhalai Lama and other highly realized Tulku's.

 

We enjoy, while being free from it. We completely liberate from the possibility of unconscious rebirth and unconscious re-absorption.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Oh... we remain in it, there's nothing else. We do manifest a pure realm where we usher beings into a place beyond the conditioned universe where the manifestations are based upon the unconditioned consciousness of a Buddha and endless merit accumulations, where beings can experience freedom and the teachings in a state of free, unattached bliss.

 

But, we also through the realization of our Dharmakaya body, project through our merit energy body of Sambhogakaya, endless gross merit bodies or Nirmanakaya's into endless Samsaric realms, much like the Dhalai Lama and other highly realized Tulku's.

 

We enjoy, while being free from it. We completely liberate from the possibility of unconscious rebirth and unconscious re-absorption.

 

If you say that you are completely liberated from samsara, how do you avoid the dualism of samsara and nirvana? As someone who loves the Madhyamaka philosophy, I have trouble understanding your how you could ever be separate from the dependently originating dance of the cosmos. Wouldn't this necessarily set you up as a being with inherent self-hood? This being the case, it seems to me as if the Enlightened man (see Vimalakirti) would be someone who is always without desire in order to see its mysteries and always with desire in order to see its manifestations. In other words, he is enlightened because he is able to simultaneously embrace and both samsara and nirvana.

 

I have not personally gone through the different jhanas, as I personally practice zazen. Perhaps this would give me some more insight into your philosophy. Which school most informs your Vajrayana practice?

[Stigweard]

This being the case, it seems to me as if the Enlightened man (see Vimalakirti) would be someone who is always without desire in order to see its mysteries and always with desire in order to see its manifestations. In other words, he is enlightened because he is able to simultaneously embrace and both samsara and nirvana.

 

Hiya Zhuo Ming-Dao, were you deliberately para-phrasing the Daodejing here or is what you said a part of Buddhist teachings?

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Ah! But this Taoist does not hold to the concept of recycling that the Buddhists hold to so there is no need to seek liberation.

 

I am already free, thank you very much.

 

Be well!

 

Just read Stigweard's response to that post. He did a much better job responding than I did. Hehehe.

 

Be well!

Edited August 19, 2009 by Marblehead

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

reifications

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhhhh....I'm melllltinnnggggg!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Hiya Zhuo Ming-Dao, were you deliberately para-phrasing the Daodejing here or is what you said a part of Buddhist teachings?

Haha, that was deliberate. I was just trying to make a point about how these different philosophies could be see as complementary. Sorry if it was a little obtuse.

[Stigweard]

Haha, that was deliberate. I was just trying to make a point about how these different philosophies could be see as complementary. Sorry if it was a little obtuse.

Not obtuse at all my friend, I found it very helpful actually

 

So useful that I shall requote it because I believe that this is an important line of inquiry:

 

This being the case, it seems to me as if the Enlightened man (see Vimalakirti) would be someone who is always without desire in order to see its mysteries and always with desire in order to see its manifestations. In other words, he is enlightened because he is able to simultaneously embrace and both samsara and nirvana.

How does this fit with our Buddhist friends?

 

Edited August 20, 2009 by Stigweard

[ZenStatic]

I am familiar with many Daoist sciences and technologies that change the world for better in fields as medicine, human society, astronomy, self-defense, chemistry, mathematics, study of nature, animals and plants, strategy and logistics, governing a state or country, doing business, building a house, enriching the relationship between human beings, between male and female, raising children, being devoted and honouring the ancestors and parents/grandparents, nutrition, detox...

 

However, I know much less about Buddhist contribution regarding ACTUAL and Material well-being and care.

 

So, out of the many things you listed there, post some of them that actually came from taoism, and not the beliefs that were a precursor to taoism. I think you will be hard pressed to answer, if you actually do some research.

[nac]

Vajrahridaya: Taoism has teachings on Emptiness and everything...

 

In other words, he is enlightened because he is able to simultaneously embrace and both samsara and nirvana.

Zhuo Ming-Dao: True, Samsara = Nirvana in Buddhism. And enlightened being is supposed to transcend either.

Edited August 20, 2009 by nac

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Vajrahridaya: Taoism has teachings on Emptiness and everything...

Zhuo Ming-Dao: Samsara = Nirvana in Buddhism. And enlightened being is supposed to transcend either.

 

 

The enlightened person does not exactly "transcend" nirvana/samsara. If he transcends it, rises above and separates from it, then he is no longer a part of dependent origination and is therefore not empty. A "transcendent being" is heretical to Buddhism because that would necessitate that he has independent self-hood.

 

Maybe using Buddhist jargon is not very helpful. Here is an example from Thich Nhat Han: A piece of paper is impermanent and empty of independent existence. We can see this when we examine the paper closely. The existence of the paper is contingent upon paper factories, glue, trees, seeds, tree farmers, soil, clouds, rain and so forth. All of these conditions and countless others come together make that piece of paper and put it in front of you. It cannot exist without those conditions and similarly, it will create conditions that cause further things in the world to be as they are.

 

Everything is connected in this way in one giant network, which is referred to as Indra's Net in the Flower Garland Sutra. When you look at it from the conventional, samsaric perspective, things are separate. From another perspective, everything is completely interwoven into One tapestry, and this is nirvana. A mistaken view of samsara leads to a feeling of independent self-hood, attachment, and suffering while a mistaken view of nirvana leads to nihilism or to spiritual elitism. The Enlightened Man views reality clearly and does not fall into either dangerous extreme, but holds to the middle way. He embraces the whole but navigates the center.

 

Edit: Before you edited your post it looked like you were disagreeing... so I went back and edited too so that I was not disagreeing with you not-disagreeing with me.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Zhuo Ming-Dao

[nac]

The enlightened person does not exactly "transcend" nirvana/samsara. If he transcends it, rises above and separates from it, then he is no longer a part of dependent origination and is therefore not empty. A "transcendent being" is heretical to Buddhism because that would necessitate that he has independent self-hood.

 

Maybe using Buddhist jargon is not very helpful. Here is an example from Thich Nhat Han: A piece of paper is impermanent and empty of independent existence. We can see this when we examine the paper closely. The existence of the paper is contingent upon paper factories, glue, trees, seeds, tree farmers, soil, clouds, rain and so forth. All of these conditions and countless others come together make that piece of paper and put it in front of you. It cannot exist without those conditions and similarly, it will create conditions that cause further things in the world to be as they are.

 

Everything is connected in this way in one giant network, which is referred to as Indra's Net in the Flower Garland Sutra. When you look at it from the conventional, samsaric perspective, things are separate. From another perspective, everything is completely interconnected, and this is nirvana. A mistaken view of samsara leads to suffering and a mistaken view of nirvana leads to nihilism or to spiritual elitism. The Enlightened Man views reality clearly and does not fall into either dangerous extreme, but holds to the middle way. He embraces the whole but navigates the center.

 

Edit: Before you edited your post it looked like you were disagreeing... so I went back and edited too so that I was not disagreeing with you not-disagreeing with me.

[Vajrahridaya]

If you say that you are completely liberated from samsara, how do you avoid the dualism of samsara and nirvana? As someone who loves the Madhyamaka philosophy, I have trouble understanding your how you could ever be separate from the dependently originating dance of the cosmos. Wouldn't this necessarily set you up as a being with inherent self-hood? This being the case, it seems to me as if the Enlightened man (see Vimalakirti) would be someone who is always without desire in order to see its mysteries and always with desire in order to see its manifestations. In other words, he is enlightened because he is able to simultaneously embrace and both samsara and nirvana.

 

I have not personally gone through the different jhanas, as I personally practice zazen. Perhaps this would give me some more insight into your philosophy. Which school most informs your Vajrayana practice?

 

Your reading something in there that is not intended. The state of mind is free from dependent origination, is dissolved of it, see's it as the ultimate unconditioned, though one still acts through it seemingly, but because of what dependent origination means= One's mind is rested in the realization of emptiness, thus no arising, no dependent co-arising either.

 

It's quite madhyamika, relative and ultimate truth.

 

The school that most informs is Dzogchen which transcends the two truths model because samsara is nirvana, but I get information from every perspective within Vajrayana.

 

Ah! But this Taoist does not hold to the concept of recycling that the Buddhists hold to so there is no need to seek liberation.

 

I am already free, thank you very much.

 

Be well!

 

Just read Stigweard's response to that post. He did a much better job responding than I did. Hehehe.

 

Be well!

 

No Marblehead, you only think you are. As you think that when you die your mindstream also dies... and that's probably what you'll experience and your next life won't have any trace of memory of a previous one, because that's what you believe and experience arises dependent upon intention and belief.

 

I choose the viewless view and actually see what all this is about.

 

Vajrahridaya: Taoism has teachings on Emptiness and everything...

 

Yes, but not ultimate emptiness, it doesn't apply to the Tao. There is still this substratum that we all come from and will be re-absorbed back into at the end of the universal expression during the big crunch, if that is your focus that is.

[nac]

No Marblehead, you only think you are.

It all comes down to how one acts.

 

PS. Damn this head cold. I'm signing off for the day.

[Stigweard]

[宁]

Hey Stig, for them daoist teachings are corrupted, just because they are not the teachings of Buddha

 

Of course, just for fair-play, they admit that daoist practices can lead you somewhere,

 

but it's not it...

 

We tried our best, I guess it's your turn to be convinced that they are not going to think otherwise.

 

They already are IN THE KNOW compared to us...

[nac]

Hey Stig, for them daoist teachings are corrupted, just because they are not the teachings of Buddha

How do you know? And who's "they"?

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Ok. Fine. Here come the big guns.

 

Nagarjuna:

 

Empty should not be asserted

Non-empty should not be asserted

Neither both nor neither should be asserted

They are only used nominally.

 

Admittedly, I am better at the "both," while you seem to be better with the "neither." I cringe a little bit though whenever anyone says that they or their system is transcendental of samsara or even transcendental of both samsara and nirvana. Saying that your systems is beyond the two truths model just establishes one more layer or level of dualism.

 

From Vimalakirti:

The Boddhisattva Narayana said, "To say "this is mundane" and "that is transcendental" is dualism. The world has the nature of voidness, so there is neither transcendence nor involvement, neither progress nor standstill. Thus, neither to transcend nor be involved, neither to stop nor to go - this is the entrance into non-duality."

 

The Boddhisattva Dantamati said, "Life and Liberation are dualistic. Having seen the nature of life, one neither belongs to it nor is one utterly liberated from it. Such understanding is the entrance into non-duality."

 

The Boddhisattva Vidyuddeva declared, "Self and Selflessness is dualistic. Since the existence of self cannot be perceived, what is there to be made selfless."

 

The Boddhisattva Ratnamudrahasta declared, "It is dualistic to detest the world and to rejoice in liberation, and niether detesting the world nor rejoicing in liberation is nonduality. Why? liberation can be found where there is bondage, but where there is ultimately no bondage, where is there need for liberation? The mendicant who is neither bound nor liberated does not experience any like nor dislike, and thus enters into non-duality."

 

All explanations, of course, are themselves dualistic, so when Vimalakiriti was asked to comment, he was poignantly silent. I should probably take his advice, since discussing all of this only mires one deeper in duality.

 

 

And to end with a line from Nagarjuna:

 

I prostrate to Gautama

Who through compassion

Taught the doctrine,

Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Vajrahridaya: The tetralemma must be applied over and over to itself as well as everything else. There is no such thing as a final destination or permanent resting place. So can Buddhist enlightenment be said to exist?

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya: The tetralemma must be applied over and over to itself as well as everything else. There is no such thing as a final destination or permanent resting place. So can Buddhist enlightenment be said to exist?

 

There is a permanent state of recognizing, that is enlightenment... endless abode of pure bliss. It's called many names that are not to be taken seriously.

 

But yes... a Buddha keeps on projecting into Samsara from the state of Nirvana... said for the sake of understanding only.

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

I will grant that this is your belief, since I am not really familiar with Dzogchen, I cannot comment on it. Though if your view is ultimately the distillation and break down offered in the Heart Sutra, why do you hold so tightly to the more relativistically true beliefs of karma, reincarnation, et al. If you hold that these are conditionally true, then you contradict your stance on non-duality. I just to not see how this is tenable from a philosophical perspective.

 

If we throw away all of the semantics and look at this from an experiential perspective, sure! Your belief is great . In which case, your "primordial potentiality fully realized" sounds a heck of a lot like the experience of entrance into wuji, which is a movement beyond form and formlessness into the primordial. Dzogchen is about as Taoist as it gets when it comes down to wuji (which is not simply void). Wuwei, which you have argued against as being movements of conditions, is actually ones clear, primordial, intrinsic awareness, or Buddha Nature guiding moving them.

 

We get so hung up on the names and concepts, that we often lose the spirit of the practice.

[nac]

There is a permanent state of recognizing, that is enlightenment... endless abode of pure bliss. It's called many names that are not to be taken seriously.

 

But yes... a Buddha keeps on projecting into Samsara from the state of Nirvana... said for the sake of understanding only.

Sure, the endless ending of suffering from moment to moment through perfectly skillful action, etc etc, but isn't "destination" or "permanent state" a bit of a misnomer for it?

 

We get so hung up on the names and concepts, that we often lose the spirit of the practice.

In Buddhism, we try to balance both at the same time. Dangerous, huh?

[宁]

Milton:

"The mind has it's own place, and in itself

can make a Hell out of Heaven, and a Heaven out of Hell"

 

...or a buddhist out of a daoist, and a daoist out of a buddhist...

 

very heady energy i get from this thread.

as far as i've seen, the 'buddhists' seem to have taken on to abstraction to the extreme of the extreme.

anything that falls into less than an abstraction would be considered... well... in can't use their terms so i'll let them take it from here

 

nice job, ZMD, you almost got them...

wait...

no, you didn't

 

that is to say, you can never win a battle inside the mind, because for any idea that there is in this universe, there is a proper counter-idea that balances it properly - that's what some daoist said in other words...

 

be well

[Vajrahridaya]

I will grant that this is your belief, since I am not really familiar with Dzogchen, I cannot comment on it. Though if your view is ultimately the distillation and break down offered in the Heart Sutra, why do you hold so tightly to the more relativistically true beliefs of karma, reincarnation, et al. If you hold that these are conditionally true, then you contradict your stance on non-duality. I just to not see how this is tenable from a philosophical perspective.

 

Dependent origination is non-dual duality that is really non-dual... sort of speak. D.O. show's how arisings happen without really happening.

 

Read more Nagarjuna and meditate like a Chitamattrin/Yogacarin otherwise the talk will remain talk and the subtle meaning or intention of the words will not be understood directly.

 

 

We get so hung up on the names and concepts, that we often lose the spirit of the practice.

 

The subtle difference is that it's reified in Taoism, and said to be the cause of all things...

 

It's not a hang up, we are pointing to two different realizations. Taoists are taking a state of absorption where thoughts and perceptions are suppressed for a period and coming out one sees manifestations take shape as if out of the light of perception and then reify there experience as a source of all existence, then they try to integrate this with everything. These formless jhanas of which I have experience are talked about quite a bit in Buddhism.

 

You might like to read, Myriad Worlds.

 

Take care.

 

Sure, the endless ending of suffering from moment to moment through perfectly skillful action, etc etc, but isn't "destination" or "permanent state" a bit of a misnomer for it?

 

Why, it is a permanent state of realization where no more seeds for getting caught in duality can possibly be made, only seeds that play through duality made of the turning around of beginningless Samsara into Endless Nirvana.

 

So we see Samsara as Nirvana. That's the final outcome at least. I'm not saying that I'm a Buddha, please...

 

Zhuo Ming-Dao,

 

What I mean to say is that seeing the details of the relative all through dependent origination, one experiences the emptiness of it, while it all does it's little dance. Not like a witness either, but as a total integration, as emptiness is the quality of all arisings and emptiness is the quality of emptiness as emptiness is merely a conjunct of all experiences and forms.

 

It's not a transcendence, it's a perfect seeing of the two truths, of dependent origination and of karma that allows one to be free from it while it still play's on.

 

Because all things are dependently originated, they are inherently empty, thus ultimately there is no karma, no buddha, etc. But relatively there is, which is only a way of talking, thus the two truths model. Dzogchen transcends the two truths model because it's not a way of talking it's a way of experiencing.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya