What makes Buddhism different?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Excellent post and explanation, Stigweard. Very clear and understandable.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thus we can "be one with Tao" on the practical level of appropriate response to the changing nature of Beingness but we can ultimately "be one with Tao" by sublimating our being into the "Nothingness" of the subtle Universal essence.

 

This is still positing a self existent static eternal that is the essence or the core of all explainable things.

 

Even if it transcends the span of time, but is the core of all time.

 

All your explanations I used to have when observing the cosmos through the attitude of Brahman.

 

This would still be ultimating a non-conceptual and eternal truth and fit under the notion of monism and Eternalism, therefore rejected by Buddhism as a Samsaric notion.

 

So, Buddhism is not a part of the Tao. What you are doing is basically making ultimate the jhana of beyond perception and non-perception, which is the 8th consciousness in Chittamatra/Yogacara explanation in Mahayana and integrating all perceivable things in a metaphysical layering process with this timeless core. This is considered a mis-interpretation of meditative experience, though a very high one at that. Worthy of great praise, but not leading to complete cessation of ignorance.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

[atena]

So dependent origination is a term that implies there is no source and that is the (non)concept used to go beyond other concepts? Like a rootless root or something?

[Marblehead]

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.

 

Hehehe. Okay, I'm not going to tell you to go away. I will continue to work with you and V.

 

Okay, hear's the deal. Taoism teaches that we can know everything as far as the Manifest is concerned. All we have to do is observe. But we cannot 'know' what we cannot observe. (How can you measure something that has no length? How can you feel something that has no substance?)

 

However, there is a linkage: Man follow Earth, Earth follows Heaven (the universe) and Heaven follows Tao. Now, these are all processes - they are not things in themselves. This is why Tao is often translated as "Way", signifying 'processes.

 

So, after man observes Earth and understands the processes we look to the Heavens and we see the same processes in action - cause and effect. From this understanding we can go one step further and imply (but not stating that we know) that Tao too follows these same processes. These primal processes of Tao, The Way, or Nature, is called Tzujan. Tzujan is not a thing - it is a set of processes that Tao and all no-things and all things follow.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

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

 

Okay, in generalities, I will agree with this. The only question is: Are there limits to the Grand Whole? Chuang Tzu was never able to answer this question. He basically stated that it is not possible to see into infinity in either direction. In this regard a Taoist (at least this one) would agree that the universe is limitless. And, following the thought from my previous post there are no limits to the individual forms of the Manifestations (you, me, Stig & V.).

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Not to a Buddhist. To a Buddhist, the Tao is part of a Samsaric view of the cosmos. Unless your just saying it's naming the process of things without being a source of things. But as Michaelz and I have pointed out, the Tao De Ching certainly makes it clear that it's being named an impersonal source of things, not a God per say, but a homogeneous source of all existence. So is actually a Samsaric interpretation of the cosmos according to Buddhism and thus not in alignment with the Buddhist goal of liberation from Samsara, so we avoid that mysterious ambiguity all together because its an understanding that lacks clarity.

 

Now... we don't have to agree to get along. Matt proved that. So please. Smile and don't take things too personally. Even quietly call me ignorant inside yourself and arrogant, that's fine. But, just argue the point if you wish.

 

Remember please, we can't compare apples and oranges. Both can be right without either being wrong.

 

BTW The is no source of all things in Taoist philosophy. Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. They (things and non-things) just take different form over time.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

the comment that you either know or you don't? lol mmm ok.. settle down now Chang. maybe it's best you don't participate if you're getting so defensive. it's obvious you're attached to your beliefs.

 

I had to laugh. For you or V. to suggest that someone else is attached to their beliefs is a little ironic, don't you think?

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Need sense of humor, Buddhist. Take self too serious.

p.s., I'm not jesusfreak, doo-doo head.

 

p.s.s, I'm not trying to kick anybody out of here, merely if the Buddhists want to act like jackanapes, they will have to run the Tao gauntlet of sorts. Nobody comes in here and takes over like you's two an' gets away wid it, scot-free. We're too tough in here to let you's guys spout distorted dharma all over the place.

oooh.

 

Oh, they have not taken over. That will never happen. We have studied "The Art Of War".

 

I don't know nuttin' 'bout dharma or karma. Are they like candy kisses?

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

See this is what the Buddha avoided, ultimating an experience and calling it true, transcendent and self luminous. For a Buddhist, no experience is beyond dependent origination and all experiences can be explained through both the formula and understanding of dependent origination which is "right view" of the first of the 8 fold noble path.

 

This type of mysterious ambiguity we consider part of the erroneous views or misinterpretations of meditative experiences.

 

But V.! Just a few hours ago you said you 'know' the 'truth'. Isn't that in direct violation of Buddha's instructions? Yes V., everything is a result of cause and effect. That's the proper term to use, you know. Nearly everyone understands 'cause and effect'. Not many non-Buddhist understand 'dependent origination'. Stop confusing people! Use words and concepts that non-Buddhist can understand if you want non-Buddhists to understand what you are saying.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Infinitude is potentiality.

 

Excellent!!! You just defined the Taoist concept of Mystery with just three words. You never cease to amaze me!

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

i'm not saying it cannot be experience, that is to know the ultimate. Im saying that language in and of itself its not sufficient to describe that experience.

 

I like the way you said this much better than the way you said it earlier. Good job!

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

I mean, non-static.

 

You mean 'dynamic'? As in "The Dynamic Tao" a translation of the Tao Te Ching by Wayne L Wang?

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

Hello,

 

I have been away and come back again - to find the discussion not much advanced.

 

I have a question though, which I hope Taoist scholars can clarify.

 

There is much talk here of the Tao as the 'mother of things', or so I understand and this is one reason why Vajraji accuses (I think that is the right word) Taoist of reification. However when I look up the first chapter of the TTC I find it does not say this at all. This is the Chen translation:

 

"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

The Name that can be spoken is not the eternal name.

The Nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

The Named is the mother of all creatures.

Observe the mysteries of the Tao without longing.

Survey its appearance with desire.

Both mysteries and appearance come from the same origin but wear a different name;

they are enigmatic.

The greatest mystery is the gate to all mysteries."

 

It is saying (famously in fact) that the Tao cannot be named (or spoken) ... it is ineffable. We can talk about it - but we cannot say what it is because it is beyond definition. Heaven and earth arise from it but the 'mother of all creatures' is "the Named". As soon as we begin to identify, name and define then we perceive the 'creatures' i.e. the things. So what it is saying, I think, is that Heaven and Earth arise by virtue of the Tao and that the 'way' can be seen reflected in the laws that govern them ... but what it does not say that the Tao is the mother of anything ...

 

I realise there are lots of translation and nuance of the words may be missing so if there is a Chinese speaking scholar out there please let me know.

 

The reason I raise this is because this is not reification because the Tao is un-named as such and cannot be made into a 'thing' or a roof top concept (whatever) because it is indefinable through words and therefore concepts.

Edited September 23, 2009 by apepch7

[ngtest]

Vajrahridaya, please clarify for me something:

 

 

We don't see any state of consciousness or realization as being one with a source of absolutely everything. We see the liberated consciousness as just the source of our own experience, even though we ourselves are also relative to everything else.

 

I agree with this.

 

Buddhist philosophy is basically saying that all that is here now is based on endless causation without a source. No source!

 

Yes there is endless causation, but one can also say there is a source in another sense. Not in the sense that was a beginning, but in the following sense as said as said by Manjushri in the Shurangama sutra:

 

"The ocean of awakening, by nature clear and perfect, perfectly clear, the original wonder of awakening

The awareness of original illumination produces objects

when objects are established, the true nature of awareness is lost

with delusion and falsity, there is space

in space worlds are established

thought clarifies, forming lands

with knowledge and feeling there are sentient beings"

 

I would be glad if Vajrahridaya could comment on the above saying by Manjushri, to help me understand better.

 

Thank you.

[Chang San Feng]

Hello,

 

I have been away and come back again - to find the discussion not much advanced.

 

I have a question though, which I hope Taoist scholars can clarify.

 

There is much talk here of the Tao as the 'mother of things', or so I understand and this is one reason why Vajraji accuses (I think that is the right word) Taoist of reification. However when I look up the first chapter of the TTC I find it does not say this at all. This is the Chen translation:

 

"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

The Name that can be spoken is not the eternal name.

The Nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.

The Named is the mother of all creatures.

Observe the mysteries of the Tao without longing.

Survey its appearance with desire.

Both mysteries and appearance come from the same origin but wear a different name;

they are enigmatic.

The greatest mystery is the gate to all mysteries."

 

It is saying (famously in fact) that the Tao cannot be named (or spoken) ... it is ineffable. We can talk about it - but we cannot say what it is because it is beyond definition. Heaven and earth arise from it but the 'mother of all creatures' is "the Named". As soon as we begin to identify, name and define then we perceive the 'creatures' i.e. the things. So what it is saying, I think, is that Heaven and Earth arise by virtue of the Tao and that the 'way' can be seen reflected in the laws that govern them ... but what it does not say that the Tao is the mother of anything ...

 

I realise there are lots of translation and nuance of the words may be missing so if there is a Chinese speaking scholar out there please let me know.

 

The reason I raise this is because this is not reification because the Tao is un-named as such and cannot be made into a 'thing' or a roof top concept (whatever) because it is indefinable through words and therefore concepts.

 

 

I concur

[Marblehead]

I agree. Those words cannot be misread unless one wants to misread them.

 

The "Mother" is the Manifest universe. The word "Mother" is only metaphorical - like a mother gives birth to her babies.

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

Having thought about it for a bit I would add that since the Tao is not an abstract reification as defined is not possible.

 

So I can't agree with vajraji - but I would fight to the death to defend his right to say it - to mis-quote someone (possibly Voltaire). I have learned a lot from thinking about these issues.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Do you understand that you said nothing?

 

 

 

Endlessly relative as in constantly changing.

 

So dependent origination is a term that implies there is no source and that is the (non)concept used to go beyond other concepts? Like a rootless root or something?

 

I suppose you could say that. Yes, I think so.

 

 

The reason I raise this is because this is not reification because the Tao is un-named as such and cannot be made into a 'thing' or a roof top concept (whatever) because it is indefinable through words and therefore concepts.

 

That doesn't matter how mysterious one makes it through saying it's beyond concepts and names. It's still an "it" or "that" or a "thus", that is the source of all things. It's the same way that Hindu's try to talk about Brahman, it's beyond name and form, perception and non-perception.

 

It's basically saying that all things come from one non-thing. That everything has a single undefinable source.

 

This is considered a Samsaric interpretation of the Cosmos according to Buddhism.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya, please clarify for me something:

 

Yes there is endless causation, but one can also say there is a source in another sense. Not in the sense that was a beginning, but in the following sense as said as said by Manjushri in the Shurangama sutra:

 

"The ocean of awakening, by nature clear and perfect, perfectly clear, the original wonder of awakening

The awareness of original illumination produces objects

when objects are established, the true nature of awareness is lost

with delusion and falsity, there is space

in space worlds are established

thought clarifies, forming lands

with knowledge and feeling there are sentient beings"

 

I would be glad if Vajrahridaya could comment on the above saying by Manjushri, to help me understand better.

 

Thank you.

It is talking about the Individual, not a universal cosmic consciousness. But rather, before this universe takes form, many beings are in a high bliss realm, I don't think it's Sukhavati? I can't remember, Namdrol explained it to me a few years ago. It's somewhere in the catalog of E-Sangha. We eventually start falling from there into denser and denser realms.

 

It's also explained very, very well in the "Kunjed Gyalpo" or loosely translated as, "The Supreme Source" by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. Our individual mind is the supreme source for our experience and the objects of our experience. All sentient beings' consciousness's are like a co-creative matrix and that is the constantly manifesting source of Samsara/Nirvana depending on if your bound by this manifesting power of yours or liberated by it. But as our consciousness manifests it's seeds of feelings based on our own history of attachments, the objects of it's feelings and attachments manifest in the realm around us through circumstances that mirror our energetic projecting on a subconscious or for most people an unconscious level. So from this perspective, everything is a manifestation of our own awareness, not in the sense of a universal source though, but in the sense of a matrix of co-creation of endless mind-streams. So we are all co-creating our experience and the objects of our experience through endless evolving and devolving. Expansion and contraction of the endless chain of universes.

 

The Kunjed Gyalpo goes into explaining how we are at first refined forms of consciousness at the beginning of the universe, but through grasping at our mental manifestations we become less and less refined and manifest into more denser dimensions. So we manifest dimensions collectively all the way into this 3 dimensional realm. There are denser realms, known as hell realms and there are lighter realms, known as heavenly realms.

 

Having thought about it for a bit I would add that since the Tao is not an abstract reification as defined is not possible.

 

So I can't agree with vajraji - but I would fight to the death to defend his right to say it - to mis-quote someone (possibly Voltaire). I have learned a lot from thinking about these issues.

 

If the Tao, no matter how ineffable it is, is considered the source of all things. That is basically a non-conceptual reification. Ultimating a source that is both static and dynamic. Then creating a layering top down metaphysics that goes from higher vibration to lower vibration, much like samkhya except that the duality of light (purusha) and dark (prakriti) in samkhya is made non-dual in Taoism through the gravity and unifying power of the Tao.

 

That is still considering one thing/non-thing as the reality of all reality, even if one cannot really talk about it and only experience it. It's basically making the meditative Jhana experience of beyond perception and non-perception the end all be all, source of all things. Like Spanda in Shaivism... the dynamic force of the unexplainable one.

 

Still rejected by Buddhism as an experience yes, and valid, but not to be interpreted in the way that these "oneism" paths interpret, because that just leads to re-absorption at the end of the cosmic eon.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

 

 

If the Tao, no matter how ineffable it is, is considered the source of all things. That is basically a non-conceptual reification. Ultimating a source that is both static and dynamic. Then creating a layering top down metaphysics that goes from higher vibration to lower vibration, much like samkhya except that the duality of light (purusha) and dark (prakriti) in samkhya is made non-dual in Taoism through the gravity and unifying power of the Tao.

 

That is still considering one thing/non-thing as the reality of all reality, even if one cannot really talk about it and only experience it. It's basically making the meditative Jhana experience of beyond perception and non-perception the end all be all, source of all things. Like Spanda in Shaivism... the dynamic force of the unexplainable one.

 

Still rejected by Buddhism as an experience yes, and valid, but not to be interpreted in the way that these "oneism" paths interpret, because that just leads to re-absorption at the end of the cosmic eon.

 

 

I think I should restate my point another way. I realize that the Tao is sometimes, and I think perhaps loosely, called the source of things but actually this is just a way of talking:

 

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.

Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.

Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.

These three are indefinable, they are one.

From above it is not bright;


From below it is not dark:


Unbroken thread beyond description.


It returns to nothingness.


Form of the formless,


Image of the imageless,


It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it - there is no beginning.


Follow it and there is no end.


Stay with the Tao,

Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

 

It is not a top down construct supported by a hierarchy of levels or powers (although descriptively this might seem to be so if you take things to be a serial progression).

 

The point is that reification is about treating an abstract (conceptual or non) as real. While we have not defined the word 'real', I would say it would be better to say that the Tao is real and therefore cannot be reified.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think I should restate my point another way. I realize that the Tao is sometimes, and I think perhaps loosely, called the source of things but actually this is just a way of talking:

 

[/color]

 

It is not a top down construct supported by a hierarchy of levels or powers (although descriptively this might seem to be so if you take things to be a serial progression).

 

The point is that reification is about treating an abstract (conceptual or non) as real. While we have not defined the word 'real', I would say it would be better to say that the Tao is real and therefore cannot be reified.

 

See what I'm saying is that a person has a meditative experience and it's utter transcendence of thought and logic, beyond space and time is very strong. Coming from that experience, one see's it as manifesting the 10,000 things, only because all of a sudden from timelessness the things of time start manifesting into vision again, so one mistakes this incredibly powerful experience as the unexplainable source of all things, as one with all things, both beyond time and all of time. The movement of movement, the negative of the negative and the positive of the positive, etc. This that cannot be named, but is the way of all things, will just be called, "the Tao"... just because... it is the way of all things.

 

If you don't like the word reify, that's fine. But that's still a comprehension of the cosmos rejected by Buddhism.

 

This makes the Buddhist realization of the process of Cosmos different from Taoist comprehension. We don't see liberation in the same way.

 

I would say it would be better to say that the Tao is real and therefore cannot be reified.

 

But, once again, if the Tao is the reality of all reality, then that's reify. To see as real. Even if not a concrete reality, but a kind of ambiguous non-thing that is the source of reality.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

 

If you don't like the word reify, that's fine. But that's still a comprehension of the cosmos rejected by Buddhism.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am sure that it would be rejected by Buddhists - that's what makes you and them Buddhists I suppose. However I do think it is a good trick to define the other peron's view for them and then knock it down. This brings to mind the way in which some of the Ancient Greeks criticized the Ancient Egyptian religion as being about worshiping animals and so on - this was really a preference not to understand that the other way is complete and different.

 

 

 

 

But, once again, if the Tao is the reality of all reality, then that's reify. To see as real. Even if not a concrete reality, but a kind of ambiguous non-thing that is the source of reality.

 

 

Not if it is real.

 

Define what you mean by real.

[Old Man Contradiction]

wow. Vajrahridaya, (figuratively speaking) you need to grow up and look at the Tao Te Ching with the intention to sincerely and honestly question it. The fact is, if you wanted to see the word "Tao" under a "correct buddhist" light... you could.

[JustARandomPanda]

Has anyone else noticed how far away Vajrasattva stays from posting in threads like this? I wonder why. He seems to me to be one of the most Awakened people of all TaoBummers.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Not if it is real.

 

Define what you mean by real.

 

Existent from it's own side, not dependently originated. But self originating. As in, all things manifest from and through this eternal non-generated source of generation and motivation.

 

wow. Vajrahridaya, (figuratively speaking) you need to grow up and look at the Tao Te Ching with the intention to sincerely and honestly question it. The fact is, if you wanted to see the word "Tao" under a "correct buddhist" light... you could.

 

No OMC, only if it's applied to dependent origination as "the way" of things. But in Taoism, in the Tao De Ching, it is considered a source of all things and the way of all things, both manifest and un-manifest, yet still a homogeneous ground of being. Thus, it is not accepted by Buddhist standards of reasoning.

 

I have and used to read the Tao De Ching and think of it as complimenting my path of Shaivite Advaita Hinduism. But, I later became Buddhist when I realized that these paths were interpreting the experience of spirituality and manifestation in a way that was not fully reasonable. These paths make intellectual and emotional as well as experiential excuses for an ambiguous transcendent Truth that is the nature of all things.

 

So, Buddhism is different and the Tao cannot be defined in any other way other than as the meaning of dependent origination, which is not a source and is not a homogeneous ground of all being beyond thought and concept which is how Taoism is defining "Tao".

 

Has anyone else noticed how far away Vajrasattva stays from posting in threads like this? I wonder why. He seems to me to be one of the most Awakened people of all TaoBummers.

 

We had a discussion once. His view of Vajrayana is quite subjective and actually quite mis-interpretive. Though, I respect what he does and see value in it. I just don't think he's a Buddha. He doesn't seem to have direct insight into dependent origination, only primal causation. As in... he see's a divine and ineffable source to all manifestation. A supreme will if you will.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[CarsonZi]

Vajra.....

 

Does it ever get exhausting trying so hard to be "right" all the time?

 

Byron Katie asks people to ask themselves whether they would rather be right or be free. It seems obvious to me that you would choose being "right" over being "free". You seem very imprisoned by your "beliefs". Probably just me projecting

 

Love,

Carson

 

P.S> Guess I'm not as realized as Santiago.....I too still get sucked into pointless threads like this occasionally :lol:

 

Love,

Carson

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajra.....

 

Probably just me projecting

 

Love,

Carson

 

 

Yes, they aren't really beliefs, but expressions of comprehension.

 

Buddhism is about clarifying the meaning. Helping others understand the meaning. It's part of being a Buddhist. So if one tires of this, then one is engaging too much ego.

 

It should be part of the fun of endless creativity! Buddhism is daunting to many because debate is actually part of the practice and getting into the nitty gritty or sifting through the mud is part of the method.

 

Refining the intellect, refining the inner interpretation of experience.

[Marblehead]

But, once again, if the Tao is the reality of all reality, then that's reify.

 

Would you stop that? Hehehe. Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is not a thing.

 

Tao is everthing but it is no-thing. Tao is the Way - a set of processes.

 

Tao cannot be reified. It is impossible to do so.

 

Bang!

 

A new beginning of a set of eternal beginnings.

 

Happy Trails!

[Wayfarer64]

As I've stated in other threads, I have sought out Buddhists world-wide asking questions and seeking their wisdom. Most monks were far more interested in getting money from me than sharing any thing other than rote-learned pablum.

 

World-wide Buddhism is a political entity with an agenda that is very similar to the Chatholic churches' agenda... Propogate Buddhism for the growth of their system...

 

Buddhists are stuck in their world -view as much as any other faith-based organization.

 

That is why Taoism is actually different:

 

FAITH is not an option. faith is the enemy of reason and true understanding.

 

Keep yr feet on the ground and yr mind will be free. Lose touch with nature -in any man-made construct, and we get lost.

 

Taoism is based only on the natural order of growth and creativity that life shows us if we observe and are quiet in our hearts.... (Buddhism will help many gain quietude,) - but then the real work begins -

 

and Buddhism offers nothing FOR ME beyond a mere mind-set of escapist ritual.

 

It is a good thing in the world, but offers lME ittle understanding of how to live as a man in the world.

 

The whole institution of begging offends me when done by Catholics passing the plate or any and all Buddhist monks begging for food door to door...These institutions have grewat wealth and they should not take from those who have been granted "Faith" and thus are hooked into the system that is just another juggernaught of tom-foolery...

 

love to all-Pat

[Vajrahridaya]

 

A new beginning of a set of eternal beginnings.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Caused by the Tao. Sorry that's reify to a Buddhist.

 

 

 

FAITH is not an option. faith is the enemy of reason and true understanding.

 

 

Which is why I'm Buddhist. I don't have faith in an ineffable ambiguity that is the subtle essence of things which exists, but lies beyond logic and reason.

 

[CarsonZi]

Yes, they aren't really beliefs, but expressions of comprehension.

 

Ok....So you don't "believe" dependent origination exists, but instead you are just expressing that you comprehend that dependent origination exists? To me that is one and the same. To transcend belief you have to have personal experience. Not comprehension. Comprehension means you "understand", you "comprehend"..... so until you have personal experience with, for example, dependent origination, you are only talking from the perspective of "you believing in" dependent origination. And I think it would be pretty arrogant of you to openly say that you have experience with dependent origination.

 

Love,

Carson

Edited September 23, 2009 by CarsonZi

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Yes, they aren't really beliefs, but expressions of comprehension.

 

 

 

 

priceless!!!

 

 

 

 

 

.