What makes Buddhism different?

[Lucky7Strikes]

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?

 

Lol, I think this is about right!

 

No one really knows. I have yet to read anyone on this forum come out and claim Eureka! This is the Tao! Only speculation like I have written above. The true sage is somewhere in the mountains laughing to himself. Very literally so.

 

The ambiguity is the very essence of Taoism. It is really the beauty of the Chinese language as well. Always leaves the cup half empty and lets the individual sort through the woods!

 

It is the Path that is stressed and never the attainment. Everything is observed, experimented with, formulated, invented along the Way. It is very joyful and open ended, a celebration of some sorts I guess. .

Edited September 24, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

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

 

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

 

 

No, are you paranoid?

 

 

Actually, i was just referring to the ultimate reified insufferability of your aura, and was wondering how the people in your life were coping with being around righteous certitude.

 

It was a joke, mate.

[Vajrahridaya]

It is very joyful and open ended, a celebration of some sorts I guess. .

 

Maybe in the Buddhist influence, but it seems that it can be taken to the dark side quite as easily with the excuse that there is no real definable understanding of the path. Unlike Buddhism.

 

Suit yourself... I guess you're lucky!

 

 

It was a joke, mate.

 

Oh good!!

[shengong29]

Edited September 24, 2009 by shengong29

[Vajrahridaya]

Monist Eternalism as displayed above is rejected by Buddhahood.

 

Brahman is still considered in Advaita Vedanta to be the sum total of all things, and the Alpha of all beings. The one we spring from and return to at the end of the cosmic eon. It's the recycling agent, the attachment to a final identity of all. This is not congruent with Buddhist enlightenment.

[shengong29]

Monist Eternalism as displayed above is rejected by Buddhahood.

 

Brahman is still considered in Advaita Vedanta to be the sum total of all things, and the Alpha of all beings. The one we spring from and return to at the end of the cosmic eon. It's the recycling agent, the attachment to a final identity of all. This is not congruent with Buddhist enlightenment.

 

Where though did I state the view point of Advaita as being Buddhahood? I am only answering Lucky's questions that arise out of Newage beliefs and neo non-dual merchandise. It does not matter that Buddhahood rejects Advaita. Advaita rejects Buddhism. But neither of this proves any point. Both schools have a set of assumptions and what they think are foolproof evidences of their correctness. If you apply Buddhist paradigm, assumptions and framework, it is obvious Advaita is refuted. Vice versa is true as well. But what really is the point here? It is like using apples to describe the taste, texture and color of an orange. Does not make sense. Take for example the historical and often violent bickering between early Sautrantikas and later Vijanavadins, or even the debate between the madhyamikas (or mahayana if it sounds better in this context) and theravadins (often identified incorrectly as hinayana) - they all try to interpret the other system within the adjunct of their own set of assumptions and paradigms and end up finding the other not confirming to their pre-conceived set of notions. If this is the case within Buddhism, what to speak of systems outside the Buddha's teaching? There probably is a clear sense of objectivity in such activity, but not to the degree where one can make absolutist statements such as 'the realization of this path transcends that'. I have personally heard some reputed Dzogchen masters dismiss Mahamudra when one who has clearly studied both understands the fallacy of this approach. I doubt you will make an attempt to understand any of this with an intention other than to reply and prove me wrong, but I write nevertheless.

Edited September 24, 2009 by shengong29

[Vajrahridaya]

I doubt you will make an attempt to understand any of this with an intention other than to reply and prove me wrong, but I write nevertheless.

 

No, you are right! There are also stages to Buddhahood. The different systems within Buddhism argue about the stages. As with Buddhists arguments about the erroneous views outside of Buddhism? The argument is that they don't even enter the stages.

 

Take care.

 

p.s. Your right! I did prove you wrong, by agreeing with you. I just now realized that.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited September 24, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Chang San Feng]

do the Buddhist scriptures describe everything there is to know about the believes it talks about?

[Vajrahridaya]

do the Buddhist scriptures describe everything there is to know about the believes it talks about?

 

Of course! From Theravada to Mahayana, to Vajrayana to Dzogchen... it's all covered in a very humongous Canon and their many, many helpful commentaries.

 

Whew!! Exhaustive of everything about everything.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[vsaluki]

The Alpha is playing with us into itself as the Omega to re-Alphaise us in the next universe.

 

No alpha and omega. Just alpha.

 

But you do have a point. I never did buy the arguement of life as a kind of theater. It seems to be an answer that is just made up to satisfy an unknow. Very much like the answers that you provide! I'd rather stick with things being unknown, even if an answer seems to be a convinient straw to grasp. Not that I like not knowing. But until there is something substantial, I think it's the best response. That way you don't have to throw out old crap if you ever do stumble on a good answer. Old crap doesn't like to be thrown out.

 

How fun... recycling me over and over again, to go from bliss to suffering, to bliss to suffering again and again...

 

You seem to be blocked on that suffering thing. Like I said before, I don't experience life as suffering. And the infinite rebirth thing is also your construct. I don't believe it either.

 

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?

 

The idea that life must come with an instruction manual is something that is also shared by the three Abrahamic religions.

 

Yes, Tao says that a path must be uniquely yours. No eightfold this and four noble that. It's the path of a single bird in flight as opposed to Dorthy following the yellow brick road. There is nothing to follow. There is no trail left behind. There is no starting point and no destination. All that is needed is the realization of how easy, enjoyable and liberating it is to fly. It's one of the reasons that I like to think of Tao as being about radical individualism.

 

 

P.S. I'm speaking metaphorically. Don't anyone jump off a building!

Edited September 24, 2009 by vsaluki

[Vajrahridaya]

It seems to be an answer that is just made up to satisfy an unknown.

 

Yes, it really has to be experienced directly through meditation or meditative contemplation.

 

This is where I get my insight from. Texts from liberated Buddhas just contextualize my direct experiences for me.

 

You are entitled to your unknowing and ideas that we don't take rebirth. I would be lying to myself if I didn't believe in rebirth, as if I were in denial about the experience of things I did yesterday.

 

I am experientially in disagreement with your conclusions.

[Stigweard]

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.

I sincerely apologize if I have ever given you that impression because, in my Taoist view, superiority is conceptual, dualistic thinking and a reification of Tao. Never will Taoism be any more superior to Buddhism. And I couldn't possibly be so arrogant as to compare Taoism to Buddhism because I haven't studied Buddhism.

 

No my friend, I have infinite respect for Buddhism; in truth I teach my Taijiquan classes at the Pure Land Buddhist College that was established by Ven Master Chin Kung in Toowoomba, Australia. My observation of the Venerables is that they are indeed steeped in virtue and my hope is that my Taoist achievement would one day mirror their Buddhist achievement.

 

And after all, to compare Buddhism and Taoism would, through necessity, require me to separate them and thus I would fundamentally violate the universal unity that, yes, Taoists subscribe to.

 

I am a Taoist because it is my nature to be a Taoist. You are a Buddhist because that also is your nature. My only sincere wish for anyone is for them to become fulfilled within their true nature.

 

I am perceiving one possible difference between the two ontologies and I believe that this may be a root of some of the miscommunication. You see Taoism certainly does observe that the true nature of the Universe is infinitely mysterious in that it is beyond the ability of conceptual description. And if I am right, please correct me otherwise, that Buddhism, by what you are saying, sees that we can indeed provide conclusive rational descriptives to everything?

[Vajrahridaya]

And if I am right, please correct me otherwise, that Buddhism, by what you are saying, sees that we can indeed provide conclusive rational descriptives to everything?

 

Your humility truly engenders respect from me and only exemplifies what I've truly ever, honestly felt from you, is that you are a good Taoist practitioner. Not only that, but beyond any religion, a truly good questioner.

 

I do feel that yes, due to Dependent Origination as the guide of Buddhadharma, that one can transcend ambiguous mysticism and come to logical and rational conclusions about everything. Of course, that is merely a reflection of the ability to contextualize direct experiencing through conceptual expression. As we know, the description of eating an apple is not the same as eating an apple, but... they are both required to understanding and de-mystifying, thus the union of Wisdom and Method as signified by the Yab Yum in Vajrayana.

 

I fully respect your ability to renounce pride. My eyes water in reflection of your generosity, honestly.

 

In humility,

Hari.

 

[Stigweard]

I do feel that yes, due to Dependent Origination as the guide of Buddhadharma, that one can transcend ambiguous mysticism and come to logical and rational conclusions about everything. Of course, that is merely a reflection of the ability to contextualize direct experiencing through conceptual expression. As we know, the description of eating an apple is not the same as eating an apple, but... they are both required to understanding and de-mystifying, thus the union of Wisdom and Method as signified by the Yab Yum in Vajrayana.

Ahh! See, there I think we have the source of our disparity.

 

We are both looking at each other's paths thinking, "What the hell are you doing that for?!" We are looking at you with the attitude of, "Man would you just shut up already with your incessant descriptions!" And no doubt you are looking at us with the attitude of, "Guys would you just shut up already with your ambiguous mystification!"

 

 

And no doubt there are onlookers thinking, "Would all you guys just shut up already with both your incessant descriptions and your ambiguous mysticism!"

 

 

I appreciate your view point and the obvious depth and breadth of your Buddhist studies. Truthfully I can say I have enjoyed learning some more about Buddhism because I was previously painfully ignorant about the fundamental tenets. I have also enjoyed being forced to become very clear in my frugal explanations of Tao.

 

If I can make a request though? Do you think it would be OK if we could drop the superior / inferior thing? I truly would like to learn more about Buddhism but I do find it terribly distracting with all the static involved in heated words clashing against each other.

 

Now I'm not saying let's stop debating stuff because quite frankly I love it as much as you do ("Bring it on!" like a student of mine would say). And I don't even mind getting passionate about what we believe. I just think we could all benefit a whole heap more if the sentiment of, "My way is better than yours," was toned down a little.

 

What do you think?

 

[Vajrahridaya]

 

What do you think?

 

 

I had been trying, honestly. Then you came in and brought up the old argument, which was not my intention. I was just trying to show how the path is different. You know? I honestly think that if one would look honestly at themselves, they would come to enlightenment if one were to look past all emotional, intellectual and experiential excuses for ignorance. One would indeed become a Buddha, no matter the language.

[Sunya]

I had been trying, honestly. Then you came in and brought up the old argument, which was not my intention. I was just trying to show how the path is different. You know? I honestly think that if one would look honestly at themselves, they would come to enlightenment if one were to look past all emotional, intellectual and experiential excuses for ignorance. One would indeed become a Buddha, no matter the language.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stigweard]

I had been trying, honestly. Then you came in and brought up the old argument, which was not my intention. I was just trying to show how the path is different. You know? I honestly think that if one would look honestly at themselves, they would come to enlightenment if one were to look past all emotional, intellectual and experiential excuses for ignorance. One would indeed become a Buddha, no matter the language.

Good o A handshake over the distance for a peaceful settlement found.

 

So now that we have each others word not to try and stand higher than the other let us proceed in good faith.

 

 

So the question is then: "How can we constructively explore each others differences without allocating descriptives of superior / inferior to either of the respective systems of belief?"

[Old Man Contradiction]

I honestly think that if one would look honestly at themselves, they would come to enlightenment if one were to look past all emotional, intellectual and experiential excuses for ignorance. One would indeed become a Buddha, no matter the language.

 

That is the truth.

 

 

a question:

Is buddhahood simply that which lies beyond duality and nonduality?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Old Man Contradiction

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

I had been trying, honestly. Then you came in and brought up the old argument, which was not my intention. I was just trying to show how the path is different. You know? I honestly think that if one would look honestly at themselves, they would come to enlightenment if one were to look past all emotional, intellectual and experiential excuses for ignorance. One would indeed become a Buddha, no matter the language.

 

 

Yes well, we shall see. (I actually think you really started this thread to show how Buddhism is better, not as a way to 'honestly' explore differences...even if you can't admit that to yourself. Look, in the above statement: if one is honest, then one becomes what?...a Buddha).

 

Good for you. We'll hold you to it, then. I hope this goes for other threads you participate in. Thanks, Stigweard.

[Marblehead]

 

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.

 

Well, I think otherwise. I believe you were born with free will. When you were born you mind was a blank slate. When you were younger all kinds of stuff was written on your slate. Now that you are capable of cognitive thought (you are, aren't you?) you have the free will to erase all the crap and leave only what helps you through your life or you can leave all the crap there and live your life in confusion.

 

So regardless of what causes effect your current state you ALWAYS have the free will to change or eliminate whatever is not useful regarding the well-being of your life.

 

Happy Trails!

Edited September 24, 2009 by Marblehead

[ralis]

Vajraji's arguments are presented in the context of doctrine (propaganda). Rather than explain specific methodology in detail, the same untenable arguments are presented ad infinitum. His presentation is not unlike the fundamentalist preachers that use the same persuasive techniques to indoctrinate and convert masses of non believers to believers. Believe in the Buddha and you will be saved!!

 

He did admit in an earlier post that he is a Buddhist fundamentalist.

 

ralis

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Vajraji's arguments are presented in the context of doctrine (propaganda). Rather than explain specific methodology in detail, the same untenable arguments are presented ad infinitum. His presentation is not unlike the fundamentalist preachers that use the same persuasive techniques to indoctrinate and convert masses of non believers to believers. Believe in the Buddha and you will be saved!!

 

He did admit in an earlier post that he is a Buddhist fundamentalist.

 

ralis

 

 

Yes, at some point we should quit engaging his ego and stop responding to his posts. Hopefully after the fru-fra of this topic, theTB's will be able to see he's just a tiresome broken record with the same old Buddhist propaganda and that he gets to puff up his own ego by 'enlightening' us ad nauseam.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Tao99]

Well, in the Holly Dolly Mantra School, of which I'm a platinum level (supreme ultimate) practitioner, we don't believe that ontological "beliefs", "knowledge" or "experiences" have the power to change a person's reincarnation stream. The Great Machine - the Universe - doesn't operate that way. An African boy in the jungles of Africa needs no special knowledge/experience to avoid the "wrath" of the universal stream. So NO FEAR.

 

We combine and unite the emptiness of Zen (wu) with the mantric form (yu) of the Holly Dolly Mantra, which we memorize and repeat, when not in Zen emptiness. Here's our Holly Dolly Sacred Holy Mantra:

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Edited September 24, 2009 by Tao99

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

Your all wrong.

 

What makes Taoism different from Buddhism is the spelling.

 

No need to thank me.