What makes Buddhism different?

[hyok]

 

V4jR4HRId4Y4, j00 c0mE 70 7eh 740I57 Cl4n Cl4ImiN' 5uPerI0R p0wErz, BU7 J00r p0wERZ ME4N n07hin' In lI9h7 0F my 9Re47NeeZ! 4Z j00 K4N 5ee i M levEl 60 in w0RLD 0F BuDdh4H00D, 5Ux0r4. kNeEL beF0RE BUDdH4! mY LEvEl Iz hi9hER 7H4N J00RZ! h4H4h4H4! wH@ k4N J00 D0 bU7 5H4kE In j00R LI77LE BUDdH4 pheeTZ!

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji,

 

Do you have a job? I have been out all day managing a successful business and I see you have been posting the same old arguments all day. LOL!!

 

ralis

 

LOL! Yes, I sell on Ebay. I also have a cleaning business that I run with my girlfriend. So... today I did go to the post office to ship some things off for Ebay, wrote emails to potential buyers, did some research on some items to sell. Made some business phone calls. I went shopping for some groceries and a dustpan. Plus I wrote a bit on E-Sangha, watched a couple of TV shows, did lots of Mantra, did some Guru Yoga. Anything else? Oh! I made an Avocado sandwich on wheat with mustard, mayo, pickle, tomato, onion, carrot, lettuce, salt, pepper, and a beer. I just finished some chips and salsa! Yummy!!

 

 

V4jR4HRId4Y4, j00 c0mE 70 7eh 740I57 Cl4n Cl4ImiN' 5uPerI0R p0wErz, BU7 J00r p0wERZ ME4N n07hin' In lI9h7 0F my 9Re47NeeZ! 4Z j00 K4N 5ee i M levEl 60 in w0RLD 0F BuDdh4H00D, 5Ux0r4. kNeEL beF0RE BUDdH4! mY LEvEl Iz hi9hER 7H4N J00RZ! h4H4h4H4! wH@ k4N J00 D0 bU7 5H4kE In j00R LI77LE BUDdH4 pheeTZ!

 

Holy Schmit!!! That's awesome!! I loooove it!! That took some work man!! Amazing... Thank you!!

[Marblehead]

I don't manipulate anything. I'm telling you the Buddhist view on Taoist spiritual assumptions that don't lead to the complete fruit of the contemplative life, from a Buddhist POV.

 

 

Well, I thought I would take this one moment before I turn off my computer for the day that we Taoists don't really care if you Buddhists agree with our philosophy.

 

You see, my belief is complete. I have no problems with my Taoism. I won't become a Buddhist. I tried it before I first read the TTC and it just wasn't for me.

 

So from a Taoist's POV Buddhists have only half the picture and they have made up the other half so they would have something that they could say is complete.

 

Illusions and delusions are not necessary in Taoism.

 

Don't forget to rub your "Happy Buddha's" belly before you go to bed tonight.

 

Happy Trails!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I like this thread. It's like someone cut Dwai's head off and he multiplied into a thousand more heads! .

 

Stig has written some amazing insights into the nature of the Tao. Very simple and very clear. I think a lot of people missed it!

 

What Taoists observed is that as the outer elements became more and more subtle, as they "traveled" closer and closer to the "core" of the Universal spiral, then distinctions became less and less until arriving at the core itself life merged into "Nothingness" (i.e. the empty circle at the center).

 

So we see that the ancient Taoists observed that the Universe was in fact a "spectrum" of manifestation ranging from the course level of Beingness all the way through to the ineffable and mysterious "core" of Nothingness.

 

This core, in which all creation acts around through a magnetic like nature, but can never be found except through that which surrounds it! Does this not sound familiar??!!

 

HAHA! It is the "I." The invisible ego!, and at its purest, an ever illuminating light that is the whole reason, the whole source of creation! BUT, It can never be found. Why? Because it only exists through the created content that is reality. Yet this source emanates a force, an intent, that makes life, well, LIFE. Reality is therefore based around an imaginary concept of "I." A center without a center!

 

The vital thing to see here is that this inconceivable subtle "axis" is at all times "now". The process of "Nothingness" manifesting into "Beingness" is in truth happening right now. Taoists, well at least this one, do not necessarily believe that at some point in the primordial past life "began". Not at all, because that "process" is ever now.

 

To take this all one step further, Taoist also believe that, through the process of refining the personal elements of one's own Beingness (i.e. the internal five elements etc.) the practitioner can sublimate their consciousness and entire being into more subtle levels and thus "transcend" the outer or coarse level of Universal life and evolve ever-closer "toward" the subtle essence of the Universe.

 

Nothing could have begun, because there is no source. Only conditions and manifestation circulating around the conceptual "I." A pattern. A habit! Refining the personal elements into the center and transcending the coarse levels of manifestation lead the practitioner into this coreless core. Thus it is said to search the root of the "I" thought! A trick nonetheless!

 

The closer you approach the Tao, more undivided and pure your mind becomes. But it is non-existent!! HAHAHA! So what the hell actually goes on?? It is realized that the process is not an approach to the source, but the liberation of the Samsaric habitual patterns around this "source." This non-existent "I," and the force that holds it into an imaginary ego explodes from the confines of a cyclical entrapment and is liberated through mind, body, and spirit. Ever non-abiding, ever virtuous, the true sage wonders through the spectrum of creation!

 

Thus he is at one with his true essence, which is without being, non-being. Which in its very nature is ever dynamic and evolving!! .

 

Now, I'll give it to the Buddha for explaining why this is all so. The contents of creation is because of this "I" thought the endlessly interacts with other "I" thoughts thereby creating, destroying, and in the end imprisoning itself.

 

I think I'm the only one who really benefits from these threads. . Thanks everyone!

Edited September 23, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

I like this thread. It's like someone cut Dwai's head off and he multiplied into a thousand more heads! .

 

Stig has written some amazing insights into the nature of the Tao. Very simple and very clear. I think a lot of people missed it!

 

I think I'm the only one who really benefits from these threads. . Thanks everyone!

 

LOL on the Dwai heads.

 

I did read it, completely. I find it doesn't completely satisfy the Buddhist inquiry. It's still a transcendent "is" beyond concept that is the single core of all things.

 

I love that your benefiting though. Your interpretation is nice and I understand that insight experientially! I just don't find it akin to dependent origination. It's still seeing a primary gravitational force.

 

You think it's talking about emptiness, but I think it's talking about the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception.

[Stigweard]

This is rejected by the Buddha and merely your form of semantics.

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black

You are still calling some non-thing as the source of all reality, that gives birth to it. Thus, for a Buddhist, that is reifying a source of existence. This is rejected by Buddhist standards.

Nope Taoists are not "calling some non-thing as the source of all reality". To "call" Tao something, to name it, describe it or quantify it, would indeed be reifying Tao. Once again in the Daodejing:

 

"Being and non-being are polarity aspects,

of the deep, subtle mystery."

 

To say Tao is a "beingness" is not the Tao, and likewise to say Tao is a "nothingness" is likewise not Tao because both beingness and nothingness are conceptual descriptions. Even to say that Tao is non-conceptual is still a description.

 

In reading the Daodejing you have to use Ch1 as the keystone for the rest. Whenever you read something that leads you to think that we are reifying Tao you must recall the opening chapter which clearly states that reification of Tao is not the Tao.

 

I don't manipulate anything. I'm telling you the Buddhist view on Taoist spiritual assumptions that don't lead to the complete fruit of the contemplative life, from a Buddhist POV.

 

Which is why Buddhism is a different path, leading to a totally different realization of the nature of cosmos.

And I am telling you that by trying to force a description on Tao in your impossible attempts to compare it to Buddhist ontology it is in fact you who are reifying Tao, and thus not only are you missing the subtle mystery of Tao but you are also perpetrating exactly the same error that you are falsely accusing Taoists of doing.

[Vajrahridaya]

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black

 

Nope Taoists are not "calling some non-thing as the source of all reality". To "call" Tao something, to name it, describe it or quantify it, would indeed be reifying Tao. Once again in the Daodejing:

 

"Being and non-being are polarity aspects,

of the deep, subtle mystery."

 

Again... just ambiguous mysteriousness. Rejected by Buddhism. Don't call it anything... don't call it the Tao... if your inner interpretation of the experience is that of the source of all 10,000 things, then it is rejected by Buddhism.

 

To say Tao is a "beingness" is not the Tao, and likewise to say Tao is a "nothingness" is likewise not Tao because both beingness and nothingness are conceptual descriptions. Even to say that Tao is non-conceptual is still a description.

 

Sounds like ultimating the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception. This is not akin to dependent origination and is akin to positive primal origination. Which are words pointing to an experience beyond words but still clinging to this as fact and not fiction. I don't care how mysterious you make it, these are ways that Advaitins use to describe the impersonal Brahman... the ineffable beyond words and descriptions, the one beyond all dualism. It's nothing new to me. It's still according to Buddhism, a misunderstanding of spiritual experience and does not lead to full blown liberation from Samsaric rebirth.

 

In reading the Daodejing you have to use Ch1 as the keystone for the rest. Whenever you read something that leads you to think that we are reifying Tao you must recall the opening chapter which clearly states that reification of Tao is not the Tao.

 

You still ultimate it. It is still considered a homogeneous though transcendent as it may be, ground of being. We are using words to describe transcendent experience here. So forgive me. But, Buddhism still will not agree.

 

And I am telling you that by trying to force a description on Tao in your impossible attempts to compare it to Buddhist ontology it is in fact you who are reifying Tao, and thus not only are you missing the subtle mystery of Tao but you are also perpetrating exactly the same error that you are falsely accusing Taoists of doing.

 

No... your still considering it the inexplicable essence of all things. Just non-descriptively. Oh these ambiguous paths...

 

Ultimating a meditative experience as the one truth beyond all relativity. They go up for the basket!! Rejected by the Buddha!!

 

He, he... just playing around Stigweard. I'm just saying though. I understand what your saying and just using words to describe that your "indescribability" is an experiential excuse for ambiguity according to Buddhism. This is not dependent origination and thus is not the same as the Buddhadharma. Period.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

And I return your thanks for engaging me in sincere dialogue

 

Careful now, let's not get fixed on the term "process" even though it is a better descriptive than "thing", remember that Tao means "Way".

 

You have heard of term, "Go with the flow" right? Well that is distinctly a Taoist principle. But what exactly does it mean?

 

Like I mentioned above, the ancient sages made an exhaustive study of the nature of change and they observed a distinct cyclic nature to the process of cause and effect. The documentation of cyclic pattern is formalized in the Yijing / I Ching. From a Taoist point of view this universal rhythm on the level of "beingness" is seen to be the outer extremities or "branches" of Tao.

 

So, on a superficial level, one can be said to be "one with Tao" when one is in tune with the cyclic, rhythmic, pattern of Universal change. In Taoist teachings of virtue, being one with Universal change is called "appropriateness".

 

Within Taoist ontology the symptoms of being out of sync with Universal change are calamities, misfortunes, diseases, strife, and contentions amongst people. The fundamental cause for such disharmonies is the discursive mind full of its conditionings, attachments, desires, and fixations. It is the 'artificial' mind that, through its own self-importance, has blinded itself to the subtle rhythms of Universal life and acts contrary to the appropriate requirements of the given moment.

 

So, on the level of beingness, a natural mind free from conditionings is said to be "one with Tao" because it will be perceptive, sensitive, and responsive to the "flow" of Universal change.

 

However, Taoists also recognized that to live only on the surface of incessant change is to be always tossed this way and that like a leaf in the wind. Though we don't necessarily find that "unsatisfactory" we do recognize the simple fact that being only attached to the surface of life tends to sap one's energy and leads to premature illness and death. Perhaps you Buddhists call this the level of Samsara yes?

 

Again through deep observation of Universal nature, Taoist began seeing that the cycles of change composed of identifiable "elements" or distinct "phases". So, as I mentioned above, the formation of the Wuxing (five elements) and the Yiching (book of changes) came about to assist in understanding these fundamental "building blocks". In a way Taoists over the aeons have deconstructed the Universe going from the coarse level of cause and effect and working their way inwards in an attempt to "know" as much of essence of the Universe as possible. This was not a conceptual process however but rather one of deep observation and meditation.

 

It would be an error to think that Taoists are saying Tao exists contextually to a point in time. To place a time descriptive on Tao immediately places it on the superficial level of "beingness" and thus is not the enternal Tao. Personally I am quite content with the idea of infinite regress of cause and effect. When the Daodejing says, "Before Heaven and Earth was existed there was Tao" the mistake, again, would be to assume it was saying, "Before the beginning of time."

 

Let me explain...

 

Like I said earlier, Taoists observed that because Universal change did in fact cycle in elliptical patterns then basic physics informed them that there simply must be a point of "gravitational pull" around which Universal change "orbited" (please excuse my terminologies here they are only meant for modeling and demonstration). Have a look at the previous diagram I have posted. See it though not as a two-dimensional image but a three-dimensional spiral (and in truth it is multi-dimensional) extending infinitely away from you as well as infinitely toward you and beyond you.

 

What Taoists observed is that as the outer elements became more and more subtle, as they "traveled" closer and closer to the "core" of the Universal spiral, then distinctions became less and less until arriving at the core itself life merged into "Nothingness" (i.e. the empty circle at the center).

 

So we see that the ancient Taoists observed that the Universe was in fact a "spectrum" of manifestation ranging from the course level of Beingness all the way through to the ineffable and mysterious "core" of Nothingness.

 

The vital thing to see here is that this inconceivable subtle "axis" is at all times "now". The process of "Nothingness" manifesting into "Beingness" is in truth happening right now. Taoists, well at least this one, do not necessarily believe that at some point in the primordial past life "began". Not at all, because that "process" is ever now.

 

To take this all one step further, Taoist also believe that, through the process of refining the personal elements of one's own Beingness (i.e. the internal five elements etc.) the practitioner can sublimate their consciousness and entire being into more subtle levels and thus "transcend" the outer or coarse level of Universal life and evolve ever-closer "toward" the subtle essence of the Universe.

 

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.

It is important to note that Taoists are not calling Tao "nothingness" for the reasons I stated in the preceding posts:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=143243

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=143271

 

[Vajrahridaya]

It is important to note that Taoists are not calling Tao "nothingness" for the reasons I stated in the preceding posts:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=143243

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=143271

 

 

Buddhism doesn't see a universal essence.

 

Period, that should set your head at rest. Buddhism has a different realization. You think Taoism is superior, and I don't.

 

So be it.

[shengong29]

Edited September 24, 2009 by shengong29

[Vajrahridaya]

He stated earlier that Tao is really the brahman and everything Stig says about Tao is true for brahman.

 

Not exactly, but quite similar. There is still a falling into the category of the interpretation of "oneness".

 

Both Taoism and Hinduisms conclusions are rejected by the Shurangama Sutra. I don't mean to hurt any feelings in this statement. Just subvert erroneous views for those that are ready to hear as such.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Why thank you! I sure hope I don't have a price on my head!!??

 

 

Not from us, but if you discretely check with your neighbors and your girlfriend, you'll probably find something is afoot...

[Lucky7Strikes]

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited September 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[shengong29]

Vajra never said he was an expert in Taoism. He is just writing his own understandings.

 

However, he did in the past state extensively of his knowledge of the Vedas, Hindu scripture, meditations, etc.

 

 

He has been quoting quite a bit on Taoism as well! Does that not prove anything, does it? Without an assumed level of expertise, how is he writing Taoism off as an erroneous view or conclusion? Taoists on this board have the necessary time and effort to write, quote and counter his arguments on Taoism. Hinduism does not have an equal representation here nor are people well-versed here with Hindu scriptures. If there are, they probably don't have the time to sit and argue with someone who has nothing better to do. That does not mean his conclusions are correct. Do they? Please stick to what you think you know

 

Extensive - ROFL

Edited September 24, 2009 by shengong29

[Lucky7Strikes]

LOL on the Dwai heads.

 

I did read it, completely. I find it doesn't completely satisfy the Buddhist inquiry. It's still a transcendent "is" beyond concept that is the single core of all things.

 

I love that your benefiting though. Your interpretation is nice and I understand that insight experientially! I just don't find it akin to dependent origination. It's still seeing a primary gravitational force.

 

You think it's talking about emptiness, but I think it's talking about the jhana of neither perception nor non-perception.

 

Even if the Tao is interpreted as a "primal" gravitational force (which I am not by the way). Attachment, identity, clinging, all these things that connect and create one entity from another is still is what is happening. You can even call it the force of ignorance. It is the relativity that creates everything.

 

Surely you won't say scientists "reify" gravity?

 

The Tao is not about a state of perception nor non-perception. It is not talking about a source. Taoists do not call it the Way for no reason, because to merge with the Way does not mean to merge with an identifiable creator. This is totally different from the concept of Brahman playing with existence that is non other than Himself. Here, there is only the directional aspect as the destination is existent only as long as there is the Path, so really it is non-existent. Only the Path. The Way.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[CarsonZi]

Vajra.....

 

I wish you the very best, but I, for one, am done conversing with you as there is no "conversation" when one person thinks they know everything (that's you by the way....just in case you were thinking I was talking about me ).

 

Good luck with your Path.

 

Love Always,

Carson

[Lucky7Strikes]

He has been quoting quite a bit on Taoism as well! Does that not prove anything, does it? Without an assumed level of expertise, how is he writing Taoism off as an erroneous view or conclusion? Taoists on this board have the necessary time and effort to write, quote and counter his arguments on Taoism. Hinduism does not have an equal representation here nor are people well-versed here with Hindu scriptures. If there are, they probably don't have the time to sit and argue with someone who has nothing better to do. That does not mean his conclusions are correct. Do they? Please stick to what you think you know

 

Extensive - ROFL

 

.

 

Enough Hindu thought has been discussed here. If you think you can contribute more from that angle go ahead, no one's stopping you.

 

I don't know anything besides what comes out of my own mind! And what comes out of my mind comes from other people as well. And I don't know anything about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism. Only of this existence .

 

And the Hindu told me that I was a part of Brahman and had no free will and that I am a manifestation of God! . If you think otherwise, please go ahead and say so.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Not from us, but if you discretely check with your neighbors and your girlfriend, you'll probably find something is afoot...

 

Are you schizophrenic?

 

 

Vajra.....

 

Good luck with your Path.

 

Love Always,

Carson

 

Thanks Carson... I actually feel a bit of your sincerity here. All the best to you as well!

 

 

Even if the Tao is interpreted as a "primal" gravitational force (which I am not by the way). Attachment, identity, clinging, all these things that connect and create one entity from another is still is what is happening. You can even call it the force of ignorance. It is the relativity that creates everything.

 

Which is what Tathagatagarbha kind of means. Though it's still not establishing an ultimate substance or essence of all things that is homogeneous and the single source of all things. It's just that Taoism is so ambiguous about what the Tao is, but plenty say, it's oneness, it's the source of existence, it gives birth to the 10,000 things. That would all be monist interpretations of the universe.

 

Surely you won't say scientists "reify" gravity?

 

No, gravity only exists relative to other causes and conditions and is not a self sustaining ultimate truth from it's own side.

 

The Tao is not about a state of perception nor non-perception. It is not talking about a source.

 

The Tao De Ching is. Then what's the source of the Tao? Is it dependently originated?

 

Taoists do not call it the Way for no reason, because to merge with the Way does not mean to merge with an identifiable creator.

 

It sure seems to mean to merge with an ineffable essence of all things.

 

This is totally different from the concept of Brahman playing with existence that is non other than Himself.

 

Actually not all interpretations of Vedanta personalize Brahman. There are some atheistic forms of interpretation, but they still don't see dependent origination.

 

Here, there is only the directional aspect as the destination is existent only as long as there is the Path, so really it is non-existent. Only the Path. The Way.

 

If it's merely talking about the endless chain of causation? Then what's all this Taoist talk of oneness and that which gave birth to everything, or that which gives constant birth, or is the subtle essence?

 

I don't really see dependent origination as clearly in Taoism as I do in Buddhism, and I feel it's because that level of clarity does not exist in Taoism.

[shengong29]

.

 

Enough Hindu thought has been discussed here. If you think you can contribute more from that angle go ahead, no one's stopping you.

 

I don't know anything besides what comes out of my own mind! And what comes out of my mind comes from other people as well. And I don't know anything about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism. Only of this existence .

 

And the Hindu told me that I was a part of Brahman and had no free will and that I am a manifestation of God! . If you think otherwise, please go ahead and say so.

 

 

You sure believe people fast don't you? And didn't bother to check?

 

Brahman is described as nishkala - without parts. How can there be a part of something which does not have parts? And how can something merge into its whole when there are no parts to begin with?

 

The concept of God, personal deities etc. are all to prepare the mind to see the higher truth. And none of those who exist in such concept-realms are students of Vedanta or even ready for it. That is good and true for them but not really true at all levels. There is an eternal debate between fate and free-will. Vidhi or fate shaped by karma is fate. Efforts represent freewill. Effort determines the fate and fate determines the freewill. Both these concepts arise because of the sense of a lower 'I' and thus have limited truth. At the end of the day, there is neither. The illusory nature of a sense of agency, which is quite compatible with its madhyamika and to an extent sautrantika counterparts, is an important block of vedanta. The aim of a vedantin is not to get entangled in this debate between fate and free-will but rather to transcend it and this transcendence comes in favor of neither for reasons already stated. Mystery is a key aspect of brahman as well - much to the dislike of some Buddhists like vasubandhu, but the difference between tao and brahman is simply the degree to which an attempt is made to shed light verbally on this 'Mystery'. The path, the traveler and the goal are really one, so its the path that is all, if that is how someone would want to interpret it! Reification is an expression, not a necessity or even a shortcoming many a time.

Edited September 24, 2009 by shengong29

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

Are you schizophrenic?

 

 

 

Are you on drugs? Should you be?

[Lucky7Strikes]

If it's merely talking about the endless chain of causation? Then what's all this Taoist talk of oneness and that which gave birth to everything, or that which gives constant birth, or is the subtle essence?

 

I don't really see dependent origination as clearly in Taoism as I do in Buddhism, and I feel it's because that level of clarity does not exist in Taoism.

 

Relativity gives birth to everything!

 

Emptiness is the mother to all creation!

 

Interpretively these would makes sense even for a Buddhist. Stig pointed out that the very first chapter of Taoism denies the "Oneness" of Taoism. The Tao, as in my understanding of it, can be seen to give constant "birth" to everything.

 

Chunag Tzu does talk about dependent origination in the very beginning chapters. I believe I quoted this for you some time ago. But (and this is an important but) it isn't as emphasized as a Taoist "seal" or any of that sort. Again, the very approach and attitude of Taoism is different from Buddhsim. For example, Taoism doesn't begin with "life is suffering!"

 

As I said before, I have yet encountered a clear concise explanation of what "Taoist Enlightenement" is. This is probably because there is no concrete religion called Taoism or a ultimate goal to it in the first place.

 

Why do you still cling to the Tao Te Ching as the supreme text on Taoism? It is not so.

[Vajrahridaya]

You sure believe people fast don't you? And didn't bother to check?

 

Brahman is described as nishkala - without parts. How can there be a part of something which does not have parts? And how can something merge into its whole when there are no parts to begin with?

 

The concept of God, personal deities etc. are all to prepare the mind to see the higher truth. And none of those who exist in such concept-realms are students of Vedanta or even ready for it. That is good and true for them but not really true at all levels. There is an eternal debate between fate and free-will. Vidhi or fate shaped by karma is fate. Efforts represent freewill. Effort determines the fate and fate determines the freewill. Both these concepts arise because of the sense of a lower 'I' and thus have limited truth. At the end of the day, there is neither.

 

Yes, it's all one Self, one being, one mind-stream. So, therefore it's all one will Dwai.

 

The Alpha is playing with us into itself as the Omega to re-Alphaise us in the next universe. How fun... recycling me over and over again, to go from bliss to suffering, to bliss to suffering again and again... all for the sake of his grand play!! YAY!!

 

Please with your teachings!! Get me off this wheel oh Buddha!!

 

Are you on drugs? Should you be?

 

You made the odd statement that my girlfriend and neighbors were secretly plotting my end... or something to that effect. Not me!!

 

Relativity gives birth to everything!

 

Emptiness is the mother to all creation!

 

 

But to Taoism, it seems that this non-conceptual, mysterious Tao has given birth to relativity. When emptiness in Buddhism is the resultant realization of constant relativity and is not a mysterious source of anything, it's actually a condition of all dependently originated things, including consciousness.

 

Why do you still cling to the Tao Te Ching as the supreme text on Taoism? It is not so.

 

Then why follow such an ambiguous path that has no real source scriptures? What are the source scriptures, is it all just pick and choose, no real teaching that holds true to every aspect of it's manifestations? Is Taoism just whatever one wants it to be?

 

How ambiguous! Sheesh I'm using this word a lot. It's like my new reify... ugh!!

[Lucky7Strikes]

You sure believe people fast don't you? And didn't bother to check?

 

Brahman is described as nishkala - without parts. How can there be a part of something which does not have parts? And how can something merge into its whole when there are no parts to begin with?

 

The concept of God, personal deities etc. are all to prepare the mind to see the higher truth. And none of those who exist in such concept-realms are students of Vedanta or even ready for it. That is good and true for them but not really true at all levels. There is an eternal debate between fate and free-will. Vidhi or fate shaped by karma is fate. Efforts represent freewill. Effort determines the fate and fate determines the freewill. Both these concepts arise because of the sense of a lower 'I' and thus have limited truth. At the end of the day, there is neither. The illusory nature of a sense of agency, which is quite compatible with its madhyamika and to an extent sautrantika counterparts, is an important block of vedanta. The aim of a vedantin is not to get entangled in this debate between fate and free-will but rather to transcend it and this transcendence comes in favor of neither for reasons already stated. Mystery is a key aspect of brahman as well - much to the dislike of some Buddhists like vasubandhu, but the difference between tao and brahman is simply the degree to which an attempt is made to shed light verbally on this 'Mystery'. The path, the traveler and the goal are really one, so its the path that is all, if that is how someone would want to interpret it! Reification is an expression, not a necessity or even a shortcoming many a time.

 

There is no one to make the effort. No "I" and no liberation or bondage as all happens according to Brahman. Whether I meditate and gain supreme liberation, or suffer in a hell realm for eternity is neither of my choice as my existence is no other than the supreme Lord.

 

And when I ask Brahman why he plays this cruel game, his reply is that it is all in the hands of the Supreme existence separating, uniting, suffering, rejoicing, and becoming enlightened. And I tell him how cruel this creation is when I see all the suffering around the world, and He tells me that all this is suffering only according to my unenlightened eye!

 

Transcend WHAT? There is nothing to transcend in the first place as all is of Brahman. Let go! Actually there is nothing to let go, what can "I" do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

.

[Vajrahridaya]

which is quite compatible with its madhyamika

 

No it's not, because there is still ultimating of a supreme subject of all beings that is one with all beings in Vedanta. So, this conclusion of spiritual experience would be subverted by Madhyamaka because that would be defined as the extreme view of eternalism, according to madhyamaka.