What makes Buddhism different?

[Chang San Feng]

I meant in regards to Buddhism, nothing else. He was the first to regard the Buddhist doctrine as superior to all others. I don't believe him to be right, I know him to be right.

That's Theravada, not Mahayana.

 

 

 

Id like to point something out to you. Buddha was not a Buddhist.

[Stigweard]

Why must you continually assess Taoist concepts according to Buddhist criteria? That is like conparing apples to oranges.

 

You, nor no one else will ever be able to explain Taoist philosophy using Buddhist understandings because they are of two different worlds.

 

Talk about your Buddhism but please don't conpare it with Taoism because there is no way to conpare the two using a false language. Yes, Buddhist concepts are a false language with any attempt to explain Taoist philosophy. The same would be true if someone tried to explain Buddhism using only the concepts presented in the Tao Te Ching.

 

So go ahead, talk about your Buddhism but please don't try comparing it to Taoism and suggesting that Buddists know everything and Taoists know nothing. That would be like an Atheist being a member of a Christian forum.

 

Happy Trails!

Reemphasizing this post

[ralis]

Are Vajraji's arguments nihilistic? If all experiences and phenomena are illusory, then life has no meaning? If karma is illusory and there is no permanent abiding self, who is carrying the karma? If Buddhists were really showing compassion, would we not see more outreach from Buddhist communities to care for the sick?

 

Are Buddhists just self obsessed with there own self centered religious views? Does this contracted world view cause more suffering than necessary?

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Id like to point something out to you. Buddha was not a Buddhist.

 

Unlike Jesus or Lau Tzu. He actually put forth effort to establish a tradition with lay disciple rules of conduct and monastery rules of conduct with monks. He also laid down the teachings of walking meditation and sitting meditation as well as the different stages of meditation. He laid out the 4 noble truths, numbering things with even round numbers like the 8 fold noble path and elaborated on the meaning very clearly in different ways. He is quite unique in the fact that he actually was the religion that he taught people and it didn't spring up later after he died. He actually created the tradition single handedly and then the torch was passed to Ananda and Mahakashyapa as well as others.

 

He certainly was a Buddhist.

 

Are Vajraji's arguments nihilistic? If all experiences and phenomena are illusory, then life has no meaning? If karma is illusory and there is no permanent abiding self, who is carrying the karma? If Buddhists were really showing compassion, would we not see more outreach from Buddhist communities to care for the sick?

 

Are Buddhists just self obsessed with there own self centered religious views? Does this contracted world view cause more suffering than necessary?

 

ralis

 

They are free from nihilism and eternalism. They elaborate on the flow of things. That things flow for ever and ever since beginningless time. We say that there is no illusion only delusional cognizance and wise cognizance. There are lots of outreach programs, but the most important outreach is to teach the dharma so that people can liberate themselves from the causes and conditions of suffering. The point of life is what you make of it, because our experience of life originates from our view of life which originates from our interpretation of life on conscious and subconscious levels.

 

Some just will not understand though. So, there are perfectly good Theist paths that work well to raise capacity and lead to higher rebirth. Go follow Amma if you want some charity with very little nitty gritty spiritual teaching other than the greatness of loving everyone and selfless service. Which are great things and part of the immeasurables which are virtue trainings within Buddhism as well.

 

Buddhism is concerned with teaching philosophy and methods so that people can unravel themselves and realize directly the nature of things. This is the highest form of charity!

[ralis]

Unlike Jesus or Lau Tzu. He actually put forth effort to establish a tradition with lay disciple rules of conduct and monastery rules of conduct with monks. He also laid down the teachings of walking meditation and sitting meditation as well as the different stages of meditation. He laid out the 4 noble truths, numbering things with even round numbers like the 8 fold noble path and elaborated on the meaning very clearly in different ways. He is quite unique in the fact that he actually was the religion that he taught people and it didn't spring up later after he died. He actually created the tradition single handedly and then the torch was passed to Ananda and Mahakashyapa as well as others.

 

He certainly was a Buddhist.

They are free from nihilism and eternalism. They elaborate on the flow of things. That things flow for ever and ever since beginningless time. We say that there is no illusion only delusional cognizance and wise cognizance. There are lots of outreach programs, but the most important outreach is to teach the dharma so that people can liberate themselves from the causes and conditions of suffering. The point of life is what you make of it, because our experience of life originates from our view of life which originates from our interpretation of life on conscious and subconscious levels.

 

Some just will not understand though. So, there are perfectly good Theist paths that work well to raise capacity and lead to higher rebirth. Go follow Amma if you want some charity with very little nitty gritty spiritual teaching other than the greatness of loving everyone and selfless service. Which are great things and part of the immeasurables which are virtue trainings within Buddhism as well.

 

Buddhism is concerned with teaching philosophy and methods so that people can unravel themselves and realize directly the nature of things. This is the highest form of charity!

 

 

You did not answer my questions.

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

So your friend is saying that 'Taoist' make real something that is not real. Well the whole point of Taoism is that you cannot reify the Tao. There is no abstraction and conceptualization of the Tao. So why would a Taoist do so, only in so much as a Taoist, like a Buddhist is a human experiencing existence and creating his own reality through his own belief filters... but a wise Taoist knows that is not Tao... does a Buddhist? It would seem this one does not.

 

The Tao De Ching say's the Tao is the source and mother of all things. What all you guys are saying is that this is a lie? It's a mistranslation?

 

If it is the complete sum total of everything thought of and not thought of, and is the source and mother of all things. The center of the universe from which things spring and return to...

 

Then what does that say? It is the reality of the real!

 

To a Buddhist that is reification. It doesn't matter how mystical you guys want to be in your terminology, it lacks clarity and is ambiguous.

 

If it's just "to be experienced" that's the same excuse as the Hindus make about Brahman. You can't think it, you have to be it... and all that jazz.

 

You can have that jazz (abstract music), that's fine. I didn't bring up this thread as a Buddhism vs. Taoism thread, Stigweard made the first comment about superiority. I just stated how it was different from other paths.

 

Peace.

 

You did not answer my questions.

 

ralis

 

I sure did, you must not understand the answers then. I can't help you ralis, this is an ongoing problem of yours. I understand you, but you don't understand me. So be it.

 

You totally missed the point. I said you cannot know the unknowable and you come back and tell me that you know the unknowable. Now who is being arrogant? And I never said whose words that you put in quotes. That is your way of trying to distort what I said.

 

I didn't say that you said them, did I? Also... in Buddhism, we don't think that there is anything unknowable. All things have to do is be contextualized properly and they can be known, directly and even non-dualistically as free from thought elaboration.

[Sunya]

 

Feeling frustrated mikaelz? Excellent!!! I have to admit I have felt a little perturbed myself at the lack of respect shown here to others' points of view. Dialogue is about dutifully considering other peoples comments but what the Buddha Boys are doing is simply steamrolling the comments of others with that attitude of, "If I beat my drum loud enough and drown out the sounds of the other players then that constitutes a win for me."

 

The reason why I repeat my comments is because they are yet to be fully heard. You guys quite happily harp on and on about "reification" when, in regards to Tao, you are quite simply wrong. Please don't expect me to sit back and watch as you misrepresent Tao with tones of authority simply because from your very blinkered Buddhist view point it would appear to your superficial and wholly biased analysis that Taoists reify Tao.

 

In reference to all the conventional definitions of reify you are wrong, and even with your Buddhist distorted version of reify you are still wrong when you say Taoist reify Tao. Lets look at your explanation:

No. Tao is not an abstract idea that we then try and "make real" by superimposing it over the universe. You have to look deeper into Taoist ontology to understand it properly. Just giving it a cursory glance like you (the collective) are doing is to miss "it".

 

Taoism first and foremost recognizes the incessant changing nature of the Universe, just like you Buddhists. Because change was seen as the only constant then the ancient sages devoted their research to understand the nature of change. After aeons of empirical observation and documentation it was seen that change was not purely random, there was a pattern to change that seemed to flow in a cyclic fashion. After much more documentation and observation it was seen that these cycles of change moved in steady, predictable patterns. Thus was formalized the Taoist models like the Ten Celestial Stems and Twelve Terrestrial Branches , the I Ching, the Wuxing etc.

 

 

 

Now through their deep understanding of nature the question was posed: "If the multitude of universal change is cycling in predictable patterns, then what exactly is it cycling around?" There must be a center point of "gravity," so to speak, around which the Universe is orientating.

 

In answering that question Taoists have come to observe and acknowledge the subtle truth of Tao. Please note that this is purely and empirically an observation of Universal Truth not an "abstraction that we are holding to be real". Neither is Tao seen as a "thing" because for it to be a "thing" it would have to exist on the surface or outer rim of the universal spiral where "beingness" occurs. And thus the centre or origination of the cycles of change were observed by necessity to be fundamentally without "beingness" and thus a "nothingness". However the dualistic notion of beingness and nothingness are transcended as Tao is seen as the unity of both the manifest and unmanifest universe, both existing simultaneously. Tao is the changing surface, the incessant cycles of cause and effect, and Tao is also the mysterious and ineffable subtle essence.

 

Thus in their observation the ancient sages of Tao saw subtle essence of the universe as more of a "process" rather than a "thing" which can be reified as being real in terms of something that can be clearly defined. As such the term Tao, or "Way, was designated as the only fitting descriptive to this Universal point of orientation.

 

thank you for putting time into that post. but I must point out that making the Tao into a thing isn't the only way you can reify. if the Tao is merely the process then why do Taoists talk about merging with the Tao? disappearing into the Tao? if the Tao is the process of change, then there is nothing to merge with and there is no separate self from the Tao that is merging at all. you seem to have a really nice understanding, but do all Taoists feel that way? as Vajra pointed out, the Tao Te Ching does posit that the Tao is the mother of all, now as you say the Tao is just the process... but saying that the Tao is the source of all phenomena, then it cannot be said that the Tao is the source because the Tao is just the process. how can a process be a source? so far that sounds very much in line with Buddhism, but as soon as you start saying that the source and the manifestation are one, you are then positing the existence of a substratum that encompasses everything. you are then getting into a Monist position which Buddhists argue is idealistic and ungrounded in truth. maybe that's not what you are saying though.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

There are lots of outreach programs, but the most important outreach is to teach the dharma so that people can liberate themselves from the causes and conditions of suffering. The point of life is what you make of it, because our experience of life originates from our view of life which originates from our interpretation of life on conscious and subconscious levels.

 

Some just will not understand though. So, there are perfectly good Theist paths that work well to raise capacity and lead to higher rebirth. Go fallow Amma if you want some charity with very little nitty gritty spiritual teaching other than the greatness of loving everyone and selfless service. Which are great things and part of the immeasurables which are virtue trainings within Buddhism as well.

 

Buddhism is concerned with teaching philosophy and methods so that people can unravel themselves and realize directly the nature of things. This is the highest form of charity!

 

So, you consider your posts on this forum 'teaching the dharma'? That is your Buddhist 'service'? How selfless and big-spirited!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Like I said, it just really irritates me when someone says that someone else's belief system sucks. There is no call for such abrasiveness. And it show how intolerant the individual really is. Hey, Buddhists are supposed to be amongst the most tolerant people on Earth. Why the need to show a delusional superiority?

 

 

I never started the argument. My intention was simply to state how Buddhism differs from other belief systems. If you follow, you'll see that Stigweard started the argument and none of this had to happen if people didn't take my posts so personally.

 

But, it did and I think some people got clarity from it all. Of course, some are just confused and others are angry.

 

The subjective universe!! Samsara...

 

 

So, you consider your posts on this forum 'teaching the dharma'? That is your Buddhist 'service'? How selfless and big-spirited!

 

Thank you.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Of course, some are just confused and others are angry.

 

 

 

..and others are arrogant....

[Chang San Feng]

The Tao De Ching say's the Tao is the source and mother of all things. What all you guys are saying is that this is a lie? It's a mistranslation?

 

 

 

No, you misinterpret its meaning. Like many westerners you miss the point, there is no meaning. It just is.

 

youre trying to say that Tao is synonymous with God in the eyes of a Taoist, which it is not, maybe some, but they also have miss interpreted the Tao Te Ching, and if you rely on English Translations, remember that the views and believes of the translator have influenced the text, to call them translations is misleading, more of an interpretation.

 

Lets put it this way, do you exist or dont you?

[Sunya]

for to understand Tao is to not understand Tao at all.

 

what does that even mean? you either know or you don't.

[mattmiddleton]

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Lets put it this way, do you exist or dont you?

 

My existence is endlessly relative and never ultimate.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

what does that even mean? you either know or you don't.

 

Ha! Gotcha, Buddhist! You don't understand Tao!

[Sunya]

No, you misinterpret its meaning. Like many westerners you miss the point, there is no meaning. It just is.

 

then what does it mean then? the mother of all 10,000 things? i think every translation says basically the same thing.

 

"there is no meaning. it just is". the Tao has no meaning? or the Tao Te Ching? nobody is saying that the Tao has meaning, rather that Laozi says its the source of all things.

 

Lets put it this way, do you exist or dont you?

 

define exist

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

My existence is endlessly relative and never ultimate.

Hey, I had that in my fortune cookie last night when I ordered take-out egg-foo-yung!

[Vajrahridaya]

I doubt anyones reading this anyweay do woopdidoo.

 

I read the entire post Matt! I loved it's honesty. Thank you for such a refreshing post!

 

So nice... A true yogi's stance!

[Chang San Feng]

most of the time you are actually confusing the concept of yin and yang as being Tao.

 

the fact is, everything you describe as being Buddhist... is a part of Tao.

 

 

Just like your 'name' is a part of you... but it is not You is it. You are more than a name. Just as a the Tao is more than yin and yang, and more than Buddhist theories of reality.

[mattmiddleton]

I read the entire post Matt! I loved it's honesty. Thank you for such a refreshing post!

 

So nice... A true yogi's stance!

 

my pleasure

[Sunya]

Ha! Gotcha, Buddhist! You don't understand Tao!

 

yeah, I guess I don't. if to understand is to not understand, then i'm not interested

i'd rather understand fully the nature of all reality, non-conceptually and conceptually. Buddhism recognizes that there are limits to the human intellect in understanding the unfathomable vastness but there is never a mystery, the Buddha knows all because the condition (emptiness, wisdom) of every being is the same. we all have access to that wisdom, to believe that you can not understand the mystery is to limit yourself since that 'mystery' is actually your true nature. therefore there is no mystery. there is only understanding your true nature and then interpreting that through language for the benefit of others.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

yeah, I guess I don't. if to understand is to not understand, then i'm not interested

i'd rather understand fully the nature of all reality, non-conceptually and conceptually. Buddhism recognizes that there are limits to the human intellect in understanding the unfathomable vastness but there is never a mystery, the Buddha knows all because the condition (emptiness, wisdom) of every being is the same. we all have access to that wisdom, to believe that you can not understand the mystery is to limit yourself since that 'mystery' is actually your true nature. therefore there is no mystery. there is only understanding your true nature and then interpreting that through language for the benefit of others.

 

www.e-sangha.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tell 'em 'songs' sent ya.

Edited September 23, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Sunya]

most of the time you are actually confusing the concept of yin and yang as being Tao.

 

the fact is, everything you describe as being Buddhist... is a part of Tao.

Just like your 'name' is a part of you... but it is not You is it. You are more than a name. Just as a the Tao is more than yin and yang, and more than Buddhist theories of reality.

 

so the Tao is not just the process of change/flow. its actually the name given to the All, the grand Whole. Everything. the Tao then is no different than the Hindu Brahman.

 

there is nothing beyond Shunyata as emptiness is the condition of all phenomena, to go further is to cross the red line. there is no Grand whole according to Buddhism. there is no Birds eye view. there is infinity. lhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_point Buddhists do not take the position that such a point exists

[Chang San Feng]

what does that even mean? you either know or you don't.

 

 

You do not understand this very simple statement? I'm sorry but the arrogance you guys have been showing is just ridiculous in light of this comment.

[Sunya]

www.e-sangha.com

tell 'em 'songs' sent ya.

 

i'm perfectly happy posting on both forums, thank you.

 

there are many Buddhists here and this forum isn't strictly for Taoists as the main page says.

this was pointed out to you before a couple times, so I don't get why you keep trying to kick people out of here. you don't speak for the community. if you don't want to participate in a discussion then don't. this would probably be for the best since you never really contribute anyway. maybe that's why you respond with such anger, hostility, and sarcasm all the time? maybe you should log back in to jesusfreak and show us all how amazing you are at insulting people?