Of Buddhists and Taoists

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

Ok... sure.

 

But, the difference being exposed here is the reality... that you guy's name a source, though as transcendent of concepts as it may be and as both immaterial and material as it may be. It's a source...

 

In Buddhism, the experience of a source of things is merely an over zealous identification with a state of meditation. It's very deep, please don't get me wrong and it leads to all sorts of wisdoms and spiritual traditions that help countless people to realize a deeper meaning and attain a higher state of cognition and capacity.

 

But... we don't see a source, there is no source in Buddhism, either named or unnamed, either of being or beyond being, concept or a non-conceptual concept or a non-conceptual state of experience that is a source of all things.

 

The main difference is, is there a source of existence? Buddhism say's no... dependent origination means endless regress, no start, no primal source.

 

Taoism as quoted in the TTC...

 

There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)

 

Also...

 

Tao is simultaneously dispassionate and nurturing...

Because all beings are manifestations of Tao, Tao - by definition - gives of itself wholly and completely to each. But by the same token, Tao is indifferent to the disposition of mere manifestations. Birth and death and life itself, from the perspective of Tao, are only movements and transformations of form.

 

So you see what I'm getting at here? The above is not the same realization as what is a Buddhist realization of the nature of cosmos.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

 

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.

 

Oh! Golly Gee! The man knows me better than I know myself. What a omniscient Buddhist we have here. Praise the Lord!!! Praise the Lord!!!

 

Well, you go ahead on with your "and they lived happily ever-after" beliefs if that is what gets you through your days.

 

Whether you Buddhists believe it or not I truely do wish y'all much happiness, peace and contentment.

 

And actually, it is just fine with me if my Self is reincarnated and I have to live life all over again without any memory of any previous life. I really do love life and I have often joked with people that I am considering becoming a Buddhist so that when I die I will be reincarnated and I can do it all over again.

 

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

 

Funny words, I think. But if you can see the view without viewing the view then that's great!

 

Be well!

[Marblehead]

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

 

Yep. Whenever we define beauty we, at the very same instant, define ugly.

 

I think that one of a Taoist's goals along his/her journey is to see beyond daulity and observe things as they truely are.

 

Seems to me that some of the Buddhists here want to make-believe that things don't really exist. Oh! They are missing out on soooo much of what life has to offer. But then, that's their loss, not mine.

 

Be well!

 

 

Tao is not dependent origination, it's a reified non-conceptual ground of all being that is a source of all being.

 

Yes, we point to different places, we have different goals.

 

I had to empty my cup of this non-conceptual source ideation of which is also a Hindu point of logic which I spent my entire life with in order to realize the Buddha's teachings.

 

Oh! My! Goodness!!!!!

 

Now he is reifying Taoism!!!!!

 

I think my man has a hole in his cup.

 

Be well!

 

 

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.

 

No. I don't want y'all out. I just want y'all to admit that you don't know everything. That would be really nice. Oh!, it would also be nice if you could lessen your egos a little bit. I am sure that would help.

 

Be well!

[Marblehead]

this is a very contradictory sentence. how can you give a name to something which is not and make it into a noun?

 

 

It only seems contradictory to you because you mind is so dualisticly oriented.

 

Once again, "Tao" is both a noun and a verb. As a noun Tao is All, everything, every non-thing, and all the processes of itself. Tao (the totality) cannot be seen, touched, etc., etc. ...

 

The Manifest is the physical reality of Tao. The Mystery is the yet to be Manifestations (infinite potential) of Tao. Chi is the energy of Tao. Yin and Yang are the polarities of Chi. Te is the Virtue of Tao including all non-things and all things.

 

So the Manifest expression of Tao is real - it can be talked about. The Mystery is only potential not yet manifested so it cannot be talked about. The totality of Tao cannot be talked about because it contains aspects that cannot be talked about. We can only point to what might be by observing the Manifest and associating what we observe with what we think the totality of Tao might be.

 

One cannot define nor describe Tao. But we can speak to what we think some of its chareristics might be but we will never know for sure and neither will any Buddhist.

 

Be well!

 

 

 

Taoism as quoted in the TTC...

 

There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)

 

Also...

 

Tao is simultaneously dispassionate and nurturing...

Because all beings are manifestations of Tao, Tao - by definition - gives of itself wholly and completely to each. But by the same token, Tao is indifferent to the disposition of mere manifestations. Birth and death and life itself, from the perspective of Tao, are only movements and transformations of form.

 

So you see what I'm getting at here? The above is not the same realization as what is a Buddhist realization of the nature of cosmos.

 

Yes. I actually agree with you. I know - that's hard to believe.

 

We are actually talking about the same thing, we are simply using different words to explain our understanding. And I suggest that we will never attain an agreement if we do not agree on the definition of the words we use to describe what we cannot know.

 

Our realizations only appear to be different because we are using different definitions of the words we use to describe our understanding.

 

But one day, I feel sure, we will learn how to talk with each other as opposed to talking at each other.

 

Be well!

[nac]

Vajrahridaya: Many E-Sangha members used to say this about non-abiding enlightenment: "There are no enlightened beings, only enlightened actions." I sincerely doubt all Buddhists (especially Zennists) are going to support the idea that "destination" is an apt description of Buddhist enlightenment.

 

Anyway, just my personal opinion.

Edited August 20, 2009 by nac

[Stigweard]

Edited August 21, 2009 by Stigweard

[Sunya]

interesting, i'm learning. thanks Stig

 

what would you say is the ultimate goal for Taoists? is there a realization or insight of Tao? and what happens to that individual when that realization occurs? and what happens after?

Edited August 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited August 21, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

forget it

Edited August 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[Stigweard]

interesting, i'm learning. thanks Stig

 

what would you say is the ultimate goal for Taoists? is there a realization or insight of Tao? and what happens to that individual when that realization occurs? and what happens after?

 

"The process of spiritual attainment proceeds through six phases or levels, beginning with personality refinement and conscious refinement and culminating in becoming Tao.

 

Step One: Chi refinement and Natural Meditation as the cultivation of chi.

Step Two: Teh Tao: Receiving or discovering the path and learning the Tao.

Step Three: Wu Tao: Enlightened by Tao.

Step Four: Ming Tao: Lucidified with Tao.

Step Five: Teh Tao: Gaining Tao, and Tao also gains you. You live beyond your personal cares.

Step Six: Chen Tao: Attaining Tao. Your physical presence gradually merges with the invisible reality of Tao, but you are still able to respond, if you choose, and appear in form. You have achieved spiritual immortality, not physical immortality in the ordinary sense of a life that needs to eat, sleep, and pay taxes."

 

P65, Ni, Hua Ching, "Enrich Your Life With Virtue", Seven Star Communications, CA 1999

 

All your talk still presumes a source of existence. This is not the same as what Buddhism talks about.

I am content to agree with you that your Buddhism is different from Taoist ontology. I fully understand and appreciate your view of dependent origination and that all things are 'empty' because they do not have a source and arise due to an endless chain of causation.

 

I am grateful to have learned this facet of Buddhism from you.

 

Have you convinced me that the Buddhist concept of dependent origination trumps the Taoist "Way".

 

No.

 

Have you demonstrated through your own actions and your manner (i.e. your Virtue) that the Buddhist way creates a superior being?

 

No.

I just want people to know I don't particularly agree with Vajrahridaya's attitude and don't want that to reflect onto other Buddhists on this board. He's just being himself.

Your actions speak for themselves my friend

[ralis]

Deleted

Edited August 21, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I am content to agree with you that your Buddhism is different from Taoist ontology. I fully understand and appreciate your view of dependent origination and that all things are 'empty' because they do not have a source and arise due to an endless chain of causation.

 

 

Oh, it's not my Buddhism... but yes, it's different.

 

Regardless of your subjective view of me.

 

Take care!

 

Be the best darn Taoist you can be, as you are quite immersed in it, as I was in Trika and Advaita Shaivism.

[Marblehead]

Hi All,

 

That's all I wanted to do - to say "Hi". I really have nothing more to add at this point in time.

 

Be well!

[Stigweard]

Hi All,

 

That's all I wanted to do - to say "Hi". I really have nothing more to add at this point in time.

 

Be well!

And hello right back at ya!

 

Would you care for some tea ... just brewed a cup of Dandelion root

[Marblehead]

And hello right back at ya!

 

Would you care for some tea ... just brewed a cup of Dandelion root

 

 

I'd love to. Thanks!

 

Be well!

[dwai]

And hello right back at ya!

 

Would you care for some tea ... just brewed a cup of Dandelion root

 

BTW, life is so much nicer now that I have learnt people's posts can be blocked

 

What does Dandelion root do? Is there some medicinal value?

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

I have not and will not use the blocking option.

 

Here is a link for dandelion root tea: http://vitamins.ultimatefatburner.com/dandelion-root.html

 

Be well!

[dwai]

Hi Dwai,

 

I have not and will not use the blocking option.

 

Here is a link for dandelion root tea: http://vitamins.ultimatefatburner.com/dandelion-root.html

 

Be well!

 

Hi Marblehead,

 

Certain posts, in my humble opinion are bad, period (I only have two people blocked, in case you were wondering). Or maybe I haven't got the maturity to deal with them without getting irritated...I'm still learning...

 

 

Thanks,

 

Dwai

[Marblehead]

Hi Dwai,

 

I think you are doing very well. Keep walking.

 

Be well!

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Now that this conversation is so pleasant, I will join in with a cup of milk-oolong.

[Marblehead]

Now that this conversation is so pleasant, I will join in with a cup of milk-oolong.

 

 

Yea!! Won't be long we will have enough people gathered together so that we will be able to have a party!!!

 

Be well!

[mattmiddleton]

on this thread:

well...maybe the dao is a source. maybe it is also a way. maybe it is essentially monistic. From what i see, daoism is earthly, it lives and breaths in the real - it dosent actively transcend anything does it? Is the Dao real or not? Perhaps Vajrayana Buddhism transcends this 'field'. Maybe it really really does. Maybe it is just that little bit more sophisticated. Thats okay isnt it? Do you go give up your Daoism now? This 'source', as we define it we lose it, we find it we lose it, smaller and smaller, on and on and on infinitum - it certainly would be extemely difficult to reify. How large is this dao? this field? this oneness? don't the daoists just drift with the mystery of it? Do they reify it? Is that the aim of Daoism?

[vsaluki]

But... we don't see a source, there is no source in Buddhism, either named or unnamed, either of being or beyond being, concept or a non-conceptual concept or a non-conceptual state of experience that is a source of all things.

 

How do you know that there is no source? I'm sure that you have them, but can you give me a couple of quotes from the Buddha about no source. I wouldn't say that not experiencing a source is equivalent to there being no source. It's the old black swan dilemna.

 

The main difference is, is there a source of existence? Buddhism say's no... dependent origination means endless regress, no start, no primal source.

 

Why would there be an endless regress. The ability to ask and endless regress question does not impose a metaphysical condition of endless regress.

 

So you see what I'm getting at here? The above is not the same realization as what is a Buddhist realization of the nature of cosmos.

 

I think that I would want to base a realization on an experience, or at least an inescapable logical consistency. It seems to me that what you are talking about is a simple conceptualization.

[Sunya]

How do you know that there is no source? I'm sure that you have them, but can you give me a couple of quotes from the Buddha about no source. I wouldn't say that not experiencing a source is equivalent to there being no source. It's the old black swan dilemna.

 

if you are positing the existence of source than the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around. how do you know there is a source?

 

Why would there be an endless regress. The ability to ask and endless regress question does not impose a metaphysical condition of endless regress.

 

why would there not be endless regress? change, cause and effect, is the only observable consistency. Without succumbing to idealistic unprovable fantasies about a creator, how would you explain there not being endless regress? if you do take the idealistic stance of a First cause, then the burden is on you to explain how it makes sense that this First cause is Itself without a cause. when you try to explain that, you start talking nonsense like infinity and beyond concepts, which is what Buddhists say about reality itself irrespective of a separate source or creator. It's taking the creator out of the equation and saying reality itself is ongoing infinite creation without a creator.

Edited September 22, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

How do you know that there is no source?

 

Please go sit on the cushion for a long time. With sincere devotion, contemplating infinite regress along with it. You'll have some experiences that reveal...

 

The Rupa Jhānas

There are 4 stages of deep concentration which are called the Rupa Jhāna (Fine-material Jhāna):

First Jhāna - To attain this jhāna, the meditator must fix his mind on the meditation object to reduce and eliminate the lower mental qualities which is called the Five Hindrances (sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt) and promote the growth of five jhāna factors (applied/directed thought, sustained thought, rapture, bliss and one-pointedness). In this stage, only the subtlest mental movement remains. The ability to form unwholesome intentions ceases.

Second Jhāna - To attain this jhāna, the meditator must reduce and eliminate the two initial factors of the first jhāna itself (applied/directed thought and sustained thought), the three remaining jhāna factors still possessed by the meditator are the rapture, bliss and one-pointedness. In this stage, all mental movement utterly ceases. The meditator acquires complete confidence and internal assurance.

Third Jhāna - To attain this jhāna, the meditator must reduce and eliminate the third initial factor of the first jhāna itself (rapture), the two remaining jhāna factors still possessed by the meditator are the bliss and one-pointedness. Three additional components are possessed by the meditator (equanimity, mindfulness and discernment).

Fourth Jhāna - To attain this jhāna, the meditator must reduce and eliminate the fourth initial factor of the first jhāna itself (bliss) and replace it with another jhāna factor (equanimity/neutral feeling), the two remaining jhāna factors still possessed by the meditator are the equanimity/neutral feeling and one-pointedness. In this stage, the meditator enters a state of supreme purity, equanimity, and pure consciousness.

[edit]The Formless Dimensions

Beyond the four jhāna lie four higher attainments in the scale of concentration, usually referred in commentarial literature as the Arūpajhānas (Immaterial/formless Jhāna). The immaterial jhānas are designated as:

Dimension of infinite space.

Dimension of infinite consciousness.

Dimension of nothingness.

Dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

In the suttas, these are never referred to as "jhanas". According to the early scriptures, the Buddha learned the last two formless attainments from two teachers, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, respectively, prior to his enlightenment.[11] It is most likely that they belonged to the Brahmanical tradition.[12]

 

I've experienced ALL of them. So... that's how I conclude that the Buddha is right.