TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted August 20, 2009 reify AAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! NO FAIR!!!! YOU DID THAT JUST TO HURT ME!!!!!!!!!! . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) 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 There's no abstraction involved as such, but yeah, according to Mahayana there are many layers of truth. Tibetan Buddhism uses two: relative and absolute. Far Eastern schools, especially those influenced by Tiantai, (Lotus Sutra school) sometimes use a three level analysis: illusory, relative and absolute. I quoted this in another thread: Humans [or any other sentient creatures] build models of their environment, and also future possible or desirable environments. So heuristic drives [wants and needs] tends to conflate the imagined environment or entity with a feeling that the environment or entity is real. In this way, the want of a heaven creates the illusion that heaven exists. The desire for god creates the illusion that god exists. I'm not sure where abstractions come in, except in attempts to conventionalize inexpressible "absolute" truths. I'm not a great fan of the idea of analyzing "truth" in layers, but it's useful in some cases. 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 "Got them"? Edited August 20, 2009 by nac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted August 20, 2009 reified Hey, play fair!!!!!! I can't hold out much longer!!!!! {see 'my pledge to the taobums thread'} . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted August 20, 2009 Hey, play fair!!!!!! I can't hold out much longer!!!!! {see 'my pledge to the taobums thread'} . I guess there's just so far you can safely roll your eyes in disbelief before death sets in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 "The success of a Taoist's achievement will be revealed in the level of harmony, peace, simplicity and quietude present in his or her relationships with others." I think a Buddhist would agree with that statement whole heartedly ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 20, 2009 I think a Buddhist would agree with that statement whole heartedly ! Indeed! Whole heartedly! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Edited August 20, 2009 by mikaelz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stigweard Posted August 20, 2009 Indeed! Whole heartedly! I'm glad to hear that ... then perhaps you should meditate on the apparent lack of harmony, peace, simplicity and quietude present in your relationships with several members on this forum. my understanding is that reify means to make real. so the reason Buddhists are so adamant about reification (or the necessity of the lack therefor) is because when talking about the Totality it is dangerous to make it real because then you would be positing an essence or substance. thats why Emptiness is a negative description and never posits reality as existing, ultimately. for Buddhists, giving reality essence or substance is a surefire path to grasping and dualistic experience because this is a concept, which restricts the non-dualistic reality which is ultimately free of any distinctions, boundaries, and concepts. I don't know if Taoists do this, but Buddhists would say that reifying reality turns reality into a thing, which its not. It might also lead to thinking that "It" is permanent, unchanging, independent and that the parts (beings) don't exist. so this is why Buddhism is all about describing everything via negation and trying so so hard to interpret experiences free of concepts and extremes. No, reify literally means "to convert into or regard as a concrete thing" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reification http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reify ... and it comes from the Latin res "matter, thing". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none And so, to repeat myself once again, "because Tao is regarded as both material and immaterial, Beingness and Nothingness simultaneously, this term is henceforth irrelevant to this discussion". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 I'm glad to hear that ... then perhaps you should meditate on the apparent lack of harmony, peace, simplicity and quietude present in your relationships with several members on this forum. No, reify literally means "to convert into or regard as a concrete thing" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reification http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reify ... and it comes from the Latin res "matter, thing". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none And so, to repeat myself once again, "because Tao is regarded as both material and immaterial, Beingness and Nothingness simultaneously, this term is henceforth irrelevant to this discussion". yes that is the definition, to make real is another http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=reify both are relevant, and saying that Tao is both manifest and unmanifest, nothing and everything is still reifying because you are saying that Tao is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) I'm glad to hear that ... then perhaps you should meditate on the apparent lack of harmony, peace, simplicity and quietude present in your relationships with several members on this forum. Oh, but the bigger picture of harmony is always at hand, even if it's to stir up junk unintentionally due to just being openly you... And not catering to peoples ego's very well due to just seeing right through... No, reify literally means "to convert into or regard as a concrete thing" And so, to repeat myself once again, "because Tao is regarded as both material and immaterial, Beingness and Nothingness simultaneously, this term is henceforth irrelevant to this discussion". In English yes... but in a Buddhist context it takes on much subtler meanings. It also pertains to this idea that there is a......"unamableness" that is both immaterial and material. For a Buddhist in a very subtle, deeply so way, that's reification of a universal "source of all being" which we completely just see as a subtle condition for future unconscious re-birth, even if you make it to a high heaven realm for eon's and eon's... eventually... because it's based upon a focus or surrender to a "unamable" that is the soul of all things... that mysteriousness... when form looses weight, you'll find yourself jumping into the boiling pot again with your co-hearts saying, "lets all be as one"!! Then..... when that merit is burned up... another universe is expelled and you along with it as an amoeba to go through the whole karmic cycle again, from low to high... over and over and over... All because you didn't understand the subtle truth that dependent origination points to. you are saying that Tao is. Exactly... not even saying it, experiencing as such... When the Buddhist realization experiences no such "is" but rather the realization "is" of the fact that there is no unchanging "is" even if deemed immaterial. This is really going towards a state of experience that fully transcends words that words are merely pointing to, on both occasions from the perspective of the Tao is this non-conceptualness, is a non-conceptual experience and the fact the Buddhists deny this on a non-conceptual basis, so... we're trying to have a word fight about non-conceptual experiences. So, it's very hard to get a handle on what's really going on. But to put it simply... The Buddha say's that karma even permeates the non-conceptual... even permeates into the state of recognizing being and non-being, or the immaterial that is also material. So... the Tao is still a karma repository to a Buddhist. Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 I'm glad to hear that ... then perhaps you should meditate on the apparent lack of harmony, peace, simplicity and quietude present in your relationships with several members on this forum. this is a good observation, I benefit from it. thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 20, 2009 this is a good observation, I benefit from it. thanks Even the Buddha had people who wanted to kill him. I don't think these people even really want to kill us, they just want us out. So, that's not completely the measure as ego runs deep, and deep diggers will always hit bone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Even the Buddha had people who wanted to kill him. I don't think these people even really want to kill us, they just want us out. So, that's not completely the measure as ego runs deep, and deep diggers will always hit bone. I'm not the Buddha. a Buddha has skillful means, sees the karmas of others which means he knows exactly how to help them through his omniscience. I don't think you can compare yourself to a Buddha. you're just a guy trying to help others. Edited August 20, 2009 by mikaelz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stigweard Posted August 20, 2009 yes that is the definition, to make real is another http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=reify both are relevant, and saying that Tao is both manifest and unmanifest, nothing and everything is still reifying because you are saying that Tao is. Once again... Both the word "real" and "reify" comes from the Latin res "matter, thing". "Because Tao is regarded as both material and immaterial, Beingness and Nothingness simultaneously, this term is henceforth irrelevant to this discussion". Synonymously, Tao is both "is" and "is not" but we realize that these terms are constructs of conceptualization and thus are still not the Tao. Thus, once and for all, Taoists do not reify Tao. I shan't repeat myself again on this topic. I have made my point clear and avoidance of this shows attachment to your point of view. Oh, but the bigger picture of harmony is always at hand, even if it's to stir up junk unintentionally due to just being openly you... And not catering to peoples ego's very well due to just seeing right through... You are far too predictable. In English yes... but in a Buddhist context it takes on much subtler meanings. Find a better English word than because the word you are using is incorrect and if you are going to pass judgments on Taoism then you best make sure you get your facts right. At the moment you are saying that your Buddhism trumps our Tao and yet you still haven't clearly understood what Tao represents within Taoist ontology. This clear lack of understanding on your behalf therefore disqualifies you to pass such a judgment. I refer you once again to this post: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=136772 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Synonymously, Tao is both "is" and "is not" this is a very contradictory sentence. how can you give a name to something which is not and make it into a noun? the latin origins of the word Reify really don't matter. I've told you how the word is used. Edited August 20, 2009 by mikaelz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Thus, once and for all, Taoists do not reify Tao. But this is the source of existence? I know your not understanding us... It's quite clear. You are far too attached to a... non-thing that is the source of all things. Nope, still not getting dependent origination. You are far too predictable. I don't get your meaning, I knew that you were going to say what you said too... what does that mean? Find a better English word than because the word you are using is incorrect and if you are going to pass judgments on Taoism then you best make sure you get your facts right. At the moment you are saying that your Buddhism trumps our Tao and yet you still haven't clearly understood what Tao represents within Taoist ontology. This clear lack of understanding on your behalf therefore disqualifies you to pass such a judgment. No, I understand perfectly. I've experienced what you call the Tao. That sense of oneness, that state of meditation where darkness is illumined and there is no concept of there ever having been an Earth or any realm to consider. A state of meditation where infinite perception of non-perception is the only way to describe it in words. Where one comes out of it and see's the world manifest before thee as if out of the light of consciousness? Where one experiences exquisite bliss for all beings and feel's that you are one with all beings and that you are in fact the essence of all beings and all beings are your own essence? One wonder's why anyone suffer's anyway when they are all essentially this... wholeness that is the being of all being? Yes, I know... This is still just a state of absorption and identifying that as the true nature of all being is really just a mis-understanding of the experience. There is a deeper comprehension... Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Edited August 20, 2009 by mikaelz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fruitzilla Posted August 20, 2009 Oh, but the bigger picture of harmony is always at hand, even if it's to stir up junk unintentionally due to just being openly you... Vajra, You've turned things around 180 degrees. Anyone but you seems to see it pretty clearly. You say you're being a mirror to us, while in truth it's the other way around. You talk about other people reifying things, while in truth you're the biggest reifier of them all. Seriously, it's incredibly obvious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted August 20, 2009 Vajra, You've turned things around 180 degrees. Anyone but you seems to see it pretty clearly. You say you're being a mirror to us, while in truth it's the other way around. You talk about other people reifying things, while in truth you're the biggest reifier of them all. Seriously, it's incredibly obvious. if you have nothing beneficial to offer to the discussion please don't participate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stigweard Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) this is a very contradictory sentence. how can you give a name to something which is not and make it into a noun? [\quote] Which is why Laozi wrote: "Far beyond humankind's relative conception it cannot be referred to by a specific name. In the absence of an accurate word I shall call it Tao." the latin origins of the word Reify really don't matter. I've told you how the word is used. I appreciate what you are saying however I must maintain that it is incredibly important. And even in the use that you are using it still is not accurate of how Taoists regard Tao. So it is my strong suggestion that this term is no longer used due to it's inherent inaccuracy in this circumstance. Edited August 20, 2009 by Stigweard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stigweard Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Double post Edited August 20, 2009 by Stigweard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
