RE: The Buddha Bums

[Vajrahridaya]

"Worlds", yeah. We sentient beings do that all the time without realizing it.

 

From a perspective, that is indeed true. It's much different though going to higher realms that are not merely imaginary in the mundane sense of the word.

[nac]

From a perspective, that is indeed true. It's much different though going to higher realms that are not merely imaginary in the mundane sense of the word.

I agree that the realms one can visit through meditation are far more exotic than those experienced by the average modern citizen in his or her entire lifetime.

[Marblehead]

I agree that the realms one can visit through meditation are far more exotic than those experienced by the average modern citizen in his or her entire lifetime.

 

Be careful here though because schizophrenics do this all the time naturally.

 

Happy Trails!

[ralis]

who cares about Einstein? he was a smart physicist, but he didn't know everything. he certainly didn't know how to end suffering and see reality the way it truly is.

 

When one carefully examines the past 2500 years, Buddhism or any other ism fails to end suffering.

 

ralis

Edited August 30, 2009 by ralis

[Sunya]

When one carefully examines the past 2500 years, Buddhism or any other ism fails to end suffering.

 

ralis

 

so all the masters who attained liberation through Buddhism were faking it, I guess.

 

thanks for clearing that up Ralis. i'll stick with SCIENCE! now where's my Oxycodone?

[Apech]

When one carefully examines the past 2500 years, Buddhism or any other ism fails to end suffering.

 

ralis

 

Ralis,

 

The suffering which Buddhism addresses is the mental delusion resulting from attachment. It can be the suffering arising from conditionality, from attachment to sense objects which are ephemeral and also the suffering of pain, old age and disease and so on. Buddhism sees the world as samara, that is an endless cyclical 'existence' which is actually a projection of deluded consciousness. The way - the eightfold path - does not attempt to end suffering in the world but seeks to liberate the individual consciousness so as to free it from being engrossed in the suffering of samsara.

 

The success of Buddhism can only be assessed by asking how many enlightened beings it has produced and not by looking at the amount of suffering in the world.

 

Anyway that's how I see it.

[Marblehead]

Ralis,

 

The suffering which Buddhism addresses is the mental delusion resulting from attachment. It can be the suffering arising from conditionality, from attachment to sense objects which are ephemeral and also the suffering of pain, old age and disease and so on. Buddhism sees the world as samara, that is an endless cyclical 'existence' which is actually a projection of deluded consciousness. The way - the eightfold path - does not attempt to end suffering in the world but seeks to liberate the individual consciousness so as to free it from being engrossed in the suffering of samsara.

 

The success of Buddhism can only be assessed by asking how many enlightened beings it has produced and not by looking at the amount of suffering in the world.

 

Anyway that's how I see it.

 

I have no problem with agreeing with what you have said (except for the reincarnation part).

 

I think that this is the general concept of all belief systems, religious or not - to end the individual's suffering and to point a way towards living one's life to the fullest.

 

And I agree, all world suffering will not cease. There are some people who just won't listen to suggestions of how to eliminate it.

 

Of course, we Taoists (well, at least this one) don't brutalize physical reality the way some Buddhists do but that isn't too important - the important thing is for one to be able to live a fuller and richer (not necessarily monetary) life.

 

Happy Trails!

[Encephalon]

Ralis,

 

The suffering which Buddhism addresses is the mental delusion resulting from attachment. It can be the suffering arising from conditionality, from attachment to sense objects which are ephemeral and also the suffering of pain, old age and disease and so on. Buddhism sees the world as samara, that is an endless cyclical 'existence' which is actually a projection of deluded consciousness. The way - the eightfold path - does not attempt to end suffering in the world but seeks to liberate the individual consciousness so as to free it from being engrossed in the suffering of samsara.

 

The success of Buddhism can only be assessed by asking how many enlightened beings it has produced and not by looking at the amount of suffering in the world.

 

Anyway that's how I see it.

 

Yep. That's the truth of it. Short and sweet. It's right out there in front of everybody's noses, some simple historical facts and essential truths about the dharma. 99% of what I read in here would be laughed out of a lower division philosophy class. Holding religious movements responsible for the existence of suffering in the world is such an astonishingly bankrupt idea that I can only go back to my original guess; that egocentric thinking is on parade here as wisdom. It takes a lot of delusion to get to the point where you even consider that kind of nonsense.

 

I have no problem with agreeing with what you have said (except for the reincarnation part).

 

I think that this is the general concept of all belief systems, religious or not - to end the individual's suffering and to point a way towards living one's life to the fullest.

 

And I agree, all world suffering will not cease. There are some people who just won't listen to suggestions of how to eliminate it.

 

Of course, we Taoists (well, at least this one) don't brutalize physical reality the way some Buddhists do but that isn't too important - the important thing is for one to be able to live a fuller and richer (not necessarily monetary) life.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Your points are well-considered. What do you mean by "Buddhists who brutalize physical reality?" If the context of this point is necessarily narrow, pertaining to a specific point, I'll just ignore it. Otherwise, it just sounds like a perjorative hit on Buddhists in general, and your posts don't reveal that kind of sloppy logic.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Blasto

[ralis]

deleted

Edited August 30, 2009 by ralis

[Marblehead]

 

What do you mean by "Buddhists who brutalize physical reality?" If the context of this point is necessarily narrow, pertaining to a specific point, I'll just ignore it. Otherwise, it just sounds like a perjorative hit on Buddhists in general, and your posts don't reveal that kind of sloppy logic.

 

It was nothing serious, I assure you. It was, however, taking a crack at those (not only Buddhists) who like to discuss the Mystery and pretend that the Manifest does not exist. I actually enjoy discussing philosophy with Buddhists. It is always a challenge for me to bring them back down to Earth from their mysterious clouds where they love to dwell.

 

By "brutalize physical reality" I meant that we cannot, in my opinion, discuss the Mystery without discussing the Manifest. Afterall, for most people, it is from the Manifest that we maintain our points of reference.

 

Happy Trails!

[ralis]

Does not dependent origination imply attachment to a dependent source? If that is true complete liberation is an illusion. If Vajraji is correct then dependent origination is an absolute in which nothing exists outside of dependent origination. Even suffering and liberation are defined as a function of dependent origination. How can one liberate outside of an absolute?

 

ralis

Edited August 30, 2009 by ralis

[Encephalon]

It was nothing serious, I assure you. It was, however, taking a crack at those (not only Buddhists) who like to discuss the Mystery and pretend that the Manifest does not exist. I actually enjoy discussing philosophy with Buddhists. It is always a challenge for me to bring them back down to Earth from their mysterious clouds where they love to dwell.

 

By "brutalize physical reality" I meant that we cannot, in my opinion, discuss the Mystery without discussing the Manifest. Afterall, for most people, it is from the Manifest that we maintain our points of reference.

 

Happy Trails!

 

I suppose the problem I'm having is referring to Buddhists as a monolithic voice, when in fact Buddhism is as multi-vocal as just about any other religious orthodoxy. I proudly stand amongst the agnostic, rational camp of Buddhism; no room for metaphysics here. There are no "mysterious clouds" from which we must descend. So, my guess is, you are pertaining to uneducated westerners who use Asian thought as a means of adding some air of legitimacy and loftiness to what is otherwise defined as banal, boring, uniformed egocentrism, a subject that Buddhism has trained its sights on for two and half millenia.

 

Frankly, I find Taoism even more susceptible to being hijacked by egocentrism than Buddhism, simply because it is so abstract, and because East/west dialogue has focused so much more on Buddhism in the west than Taoism in the west. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path are rationalistic and empirical. Making that same claim on behalf of Taoist literature would be a neat trick. Nevertheless, Taoism is essential for body/mind union. Buddhists have a lot to learn about the role of toaist energy practices in meditation.

[ralis]

I suppose the problem I'm having is referring to Buddhists as a monolithic voice, when in fact Buddhism is as multi-vocal as just about any other religious orthodoxy. I proudly stand amongst the agnostic, rational camp of Buddhism; no room for metaphysics here. There are no "mysterious clouds" from which we must descend. So, my guess is, you are pertaining to uneducated westerners who use Asian thought as a means of adding some air of legitimacy and loftiness to what is otherwise defined as banal, boring, uniformed egocentrism, a subject that Buddhism has trained its sights on for two and half millenia.

 

Excellent point!

 

ralis

Edited October 8, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Marblehead]

I suppose the problem I'm having is referring to Buddhists as a monolithic voice, when in fact Buddhism is as multi-vocal as just about any other religious orthodoxy. I proudly stand amongst the agnostic, rational camp of Buddhism; no room for metaphysics here. There are no "mysterious clouds" from which we must descend. So, my guess is, you are pertaining to uneducated westerners who use Asian thought as a means of adding some air of legitimacy and loftiness to what is otherwise defined as banal, boring, uniformed egocentrism, a subject that Buddhism has trained its sights on for two and half millenia.

 

Frankly, I find Taoism even more susceptible to being hijacked by egocentrism than Buddhism, simply because it is so abstract, and because East/west dialogue has focused so much more on Buddhism in the west than Taoism in the west. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path are rationalistic and empirical. Making that same claim on behalf of Taoist literature would be a neat trick. Nevertheless, Taoism is essential for body/mind union. Buddhists have a lot to learn about the role of toaist energy practices in meditation.

 

Hi Blasto,

 

What a wonderful post! Much better than I could have ever hoped for.

 

You know, I had been trying to put a label on you but was unable to. You have done me a service by proclaiming yourself a Buddhist.

 

"So, my guess is ... "

 

Hehehe. Well, I wouldn't be that harsh about it. Afterall, they are trying. Gotta' give them credit for that.

 

Yes, Taoist philosophy can be molded more than any belief system I know of. Just look at what the Hippies did to it during the late '60s and early '70s.

 

And yes, it does lend to being misused egocetricly. But I think that is just the nature of any non-dogmatic belief system. And I agree, Taoism does not have the equivalent of the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. And I would suggest that this is one of the reasons why, in my understanding, there are many Chinese who hold to both Toaism and Buddhism simultaneously.

 

And then I will point out about myself, I live in the deep south of the United States where the Southern Baptist is a very dominant force and I just get really tired of hearing people say that their way is the only right way and if I don't believe how they believe then I am going to hell. I had gotten so tired of it a while back when one of them told me that I told him, "Well, you can go to hell right now!" and they left me alone after that.

 

Anyhow, back to the Buddhist Bums. Yes, there is a lot of commonality between Buddhism and Taoism and not all that many differences I feel that are significant. There can be some really beautiful discussions here if we all would stop trying to prove how 'right' one belief system is and how 'wrong' the other is.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Does not dependent origination imply attachment to a dependent source? If that is true complete liberation is an illusion. If Vajraji is correct then dependent origination is an absolute in which nothing exists outside of dependent origination. Even suffering and liberation are defined as a function of dependent origination. How can one liberate outside of an absolute?

 

ralis

 

Dependent origination means no source, as said plenty before. I know it's hard to get past one's projections and really read and see objectively and not cloud everything with one's subjectivity. But, dependent origination reveals emptiness, which means non-abiding. This means... there is no-static place to get stuck at. This means through realization of dependent origination, you can see right through everything and be liberated even while in the body. You get to see right through the paradox of bondage/liberation.

 

I hope this helps you to understand ralis.

 

Nevertheless, Taoism is essential for body/mind union. Buddhists have a lot to learn about the role of toaist energy practices in meditation.

 

Blasto,

 

You haven't studied or practiced much Vajrayana yet have ya?

 

What...?? this link didn't give you an education? I posted for you some information previously... Yantra Yoga on Youtube... which is going to be very partial. You would need to read the actual texts to get a better idea. There is a good one here... if you wish to learn more that is... Book on Yantra Yoga.

 

Education is good kids!

 

If Buddhism has lead you to materialist rationalism... meaning that the thinking that this world is absolute and true in and of itself, or that the 5 sense perception is the absolute limit of human consciousness? Then, this would be a form of extremism.

 

Be careful here though because schizophrenics do this all the time naturally.

 

Happy Trails!

 

More than you think, this label is a mis-file. People are getting labeled this all the time for experiencing something outside of the normal limits of perception but don't know what's going on so out of fear on both sides, doctor/patient... are labeled schizophrenic. This is not always the case. Schizophrenia is a subjective experience entirely. There is objectivity to be found in seeing past the 5 senses and it does happen often enough, that objectivity is even experienced by many so previously labeled schizophrenics. It helps to have some real guidance though. Which is where the Master/disciple relationship comes in.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

ralis you suck at using quotes lol

 

its "quote" and "/quote" to open and close. except replace " with [ and ]

 

Frankly, I find Taoism even more susceptible to being hijacked by egocentrism than Buddhism, simply because it is so abstract, and because East/west dialogue has focused so much more on Buddhism in the west than Taoism in the west. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path are rationalistic and empirical. Making that same claim on behalf of Taoist literature would be a neat trick. Nevertheless, Taoism is essential for body/mind union. Buddhists have a lot to learn about the role of toaist energy practices in meditation.

 

I agree with you here Blastmaster. I think Buddhists can def learn a thing or two from Taoists on energy practices, advice on lifestyle, proper diet, basically what you said about body/mind union.. and Taoists can learn from Buddhists about the effectiveness of rational peering into the non-conceptual "beyond-mind" landscape and its pragmatic psychology.

 

Edited August 30, 2009 by mikaelz

[Encephalon]

ralis you suck at using quotes lol

 

its "quote" and "/quote" to open and close. except replace " with [ and ]

 

I agree with you here Blastmaster. I think Buddhists can def learn a thing or two from Taoists on energy practices, advice on lifestyle, proper diet, basically what you said about body/mind union.. and Taoists can learn from Buddhists about the effectiveness of rational peering into the non-conceptual "beyond-mind" landscape and its pragmatic psychology.

 

Thanks Mikaelz. I really don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

 

As far as some other posts -

 

I don't remember where I made a definitive declaration about being a Buddhist, insofar as that identification alone could somehow answer every possible question I could throw at the Universe. I do remember saying that I count myself as a proud member of the agnostic Buddhist community, but we can all subscribe to different ideas without identifying with them exclusively. Even the Abrahamic traditions have good ideas to offer to the path of awakening, but I don't call myself a Christian.

 

Regarding the following:

 

If Buddhism has lead you to materialist rationalism... meaning that the thinking that this world is absolute and true in and of itself, or that the 5 sense perception is the absolute limit of human consciousness? Then, this would be a form of extremism.

 

This point isn't difficult, but it is often slippery.

 

I reference the following joke regularly; Metaphysics is for people too lazy to study physics.

 

There is wisdom, and a great deal of sanity, and a hell of a lot less work in peridically checking ones mythical universe against empirical science. Buddhism is remarkably consistent with a number of intellectual breakthroughs in many fields; physical, biological, and behavioral sciences. There is not just sophisticated dialogue between these subjects, there is consensus. Therefore,

 

early Buddhism, as originally taught, would be a wise point of departure for examining the empirical world, because it makes no demands on your senses or your capacity to reason.

 

If you were offered the choice, with a gun at your head, between a rationalist philosophy that promised to honor one's senses and powers of reasoning and still honored spiritual life, and one that arbitrarily suspended the validitiy of your senses and your capacity to reason, in pursuit of some nebulous and ineffable reward, which would you choose?

 

 

 

 

 

Door #1

or

door#2?

[Vajrahridaya]

I think Buddhists can def learn a thing or two from Taoists on energy practices, advice on lifestyle, proper diet, basically what you said about body/mind union..

 

 

Vajrayana already has a complete system for all of that so it's not really that Buddhism needs to learn anything from Taoism, Vajrayana especially. Chinese Buddhism probably already does learn plenty about that from Taoists.

 

But, find inspiration wherever, because we are in the information age and it's now possible to find inspiration wherever.

 

If you were offered the choice, with a gun at your head, between a rationalist philosophy that promised to honor one's senses and powers of reasoning and still honored spiritual life, and one that arbitrarily suspended the validitiy of your senses and your capacity to reason, in pursuit of some nebulous and ineffable reward, which would you choose?

 

Door #1

or

door#2?

 

I would split my body into two (bi-locate) through the power of logic and scientific reason with the ability to split atomic structures into completely mirrored duplicates and run off in both directions at once!

[Marblehead]

Dependent origination means no source, as said plenty before. I know it's hard to get past one's projections and really read and see objectively and not cloud everything with one's subjectivity. But, dependent origination reveals emptiness, which means non-abiding. This means... there is no-static place to get stuck at. This means through realization of dependent origination, you can see right through everything and be liberated even while in the body. You get to see right through the paradox of bondage/liberation.

 

That is the best I have seen you explain the concept. My compliments.

 

More than you think, this label is a mis-file. People are getting labeled this all the time for experiencing something outside of the normal limits of perception but don't know what's going on so out of fear on both sides, doctor/patient... are labeled schizophrenic. This is not always the case. Schizophrenia is a subjective experience entirely. There is objectivity to be found in seeing past the 5 senses and it does happen often enough, that objectivity is even experienced by many so previously labeled schizophrenics. It helps to have some real guidance though. Which is where the Master/disciple relationship comes in.

 

Yes, I agree. The medical has a tendancy toward mis-diagnosis of percieved psychological problems. They get extra money when they get people on drugs. (Okay, to be fair, not all do that but many do.)

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

Hey Blasto,

 

I was just playing with you on the labeling thing.

 

We Taoists are not supposed to label. Shame on me. Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

That is the best I have seen you explain the concept. My compliments.

 

I think I've explained it better previously, but... whatever makes the point.

 

Thank you Marbles!

[Marblehead]

I think I've explained it better previously, but... whatever makes the point.

 

Thank you Marbles!

 

I obviously wasn't paying much attention to you earlier.

 

Happy Trails!

[ralis]

deleted

Edited August 30, 2009 by ralis

[ralis]

deleted

Edited August 30, 2009 by ralis

[nac]

Be careful here though because schizophrenics do this all the time naturally.

The average modern citizen is schizophrenic? Still, any "world-view" is ultimately subjective and illusory in the usual sense IMO. Jung said that certain mental illnesses are merely an extreme form of habits that are already present in the healthy mind.

Edited August 31, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

The average modern citizen is schizophrenic? Still, any "world-view" is ultimately subjective and illusory in the usual sense IMO. Jung said that certain mental illnesses are merely an extreme form of habits that are already present in the healthy mind.

 

Hehehe. Yeah, I liked Jung too although I didn't read that much of his work. I do like his 'collective subsconscious' theory though. I use it to explain deja vu and past life experiences.

 

Happy Trails!