What makes Buddhism different?

[Marblehead]

Actually, Buddhism is not any different from any other religion because it sets a false reality for those who wish to follow then it gives instruction on how to overcome these false views.

 

Philosophical Taoism, on the other hand, tells its readers to observe nature, understand its prossees then live according to your own true nature.

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

Actually, Buddhism is not any different from any other religion because it sets a false reality for those who wish to follow then it gives instruction on how to overcome these false views.

 

Philosophical Taoism, on the other hand, tells its readers to observe nature, understand its prossees then live according to your own true nature.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Marble,

 

Do you realize that in the time it took you to type the last two posts you could have made and drunk a nice cup of tea. Also in the same time scale Witch would probably have had 50 orgasms.

 

I realize it is not you who is prolonging this futile debate and I only make these rather feeble points because I am feeling very worn down by this Taoist/Buddhist feuding. We have already decided to settle this by means of a no holds barred bout of fisticuffs between the two titular heads - I think that is enough.

 

A.

Edited October 3, 2009 by apepch7

[Vajrahridaya]

From this same thread in the E-Sangha board...

 

"For me there are 2 things which particularly seperate Buddhism from other religions. The first is anatta, the denial of an enduring self or soul. The second is that Buddhism is empirical, it aims to see things as they really are instead of starting from a point of view laden with beliefs in God(s), souls, heaven etc etc." - Spiny Norman.

[Marblehead]

Marble,

 

Do you realize that in the time it took you to type the last two posts you could have made and drunk a nice cup of tea. Also in the same time scale Witch would probably have had 50 orgasms.

 

I realize it is not you who is prolonging this futile debate and I only make these rather feeble points because I am feeling very worn down by this Taoist/Buddhist feuding. We have already decided to settle this by means of a no holds barred bout of fisticuffs between the two titular heads - I think that is enough.

 

A.

 

Hi Apepch7,

 

Actually, I am having my tea now along with a King Edward Regular Filtered Little Cigar (I'm smoking that, of course).

 

Yes, it is a futile debate. But, you see, when someone enters a discussion of Taoism and suggests that another belief system is better than Taoism I just naturally get irritated.

 

Yes, it would be so nice if we could just discuss how each can and does compliment the other. But as long as we hold to the belief that there is only one true way and that is the way we follow and anyone who is not following that one true way is wrong there are going to be arguements.

 

It is understandable that any thread will go off topic now and then. It can always go back to topic anytime anyone wants to add to the topic discussion. But when an arguement is brought into a discussion the topic is destroyed and the entire thread digresses into a useless pissing contest - an ego exercise room.

 

There have been a couple very nice threads lately that went full course without any arguements about this vs that. I was very happy to see that. Perhaps we are maturing in our lod age. I hope so.

 

Happy Trails!

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

Marble,

 

We have already decided to settle this by means of a no holds barred bout of fisticuffs between the two titular heads - I think that is enough.

 

A.

 

Yes! That's right apepch7, and as secretary of the 'non-delusional enlightenment system' your supposed to be making all the pay-per view arrangements but I haven't received a memo or any progress reports. I feel you are taking your responsibilities too lightly, if I had hired(lol)another more qualified person I feel sure Don King would already be involved. I suggest you go down to Dixons and get a 16k ram pack for your ZX81 in preparation for all the work your gonna be doing.

[Marblehead]

Well, as I just had a very invigorating arguement with another Taoist I won't feel nearly so bad the next time I have one with V. or some other Buddhist.

 

So who is going to start a thread of something like "What Buddhism and Taoism have in Common"?

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, as I just had a very invigorating arguement with another Taoist I won't feel nearly so bad the next time I have one with V. or some other Buddhist.

 

So who is going to start a thread of something like "What Buddhism and Taoism have in Common"?

 

Happy Trails!

 

That I think would be a very interesting topic.

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

Well, as I just had a very invigorating arguement with another Taoist I won't feel nearly so bad the next time I have one with V. or some other Buddhist.

 

So who is going to start a thread of something like "What Buddhism and Taoism have in Common"?

 

Happy Trails!

 

Are you serious..... you know how it's gonna end up! I mean realistically how long does this war zone go on for? I mean usually? Every thread I look at it's kickin' off! It's like some bizarre sh*t.

[Marblehead]

Are you serious..... you know how it's gonna end up! I mean realistically how long does this war zone go on for? I mean usually? Every thread I look at it's kickin' off! It's like some bizarre sh*t.

 

Hehehe. Yeah, but it's mostly all fun. Helps keep the brain juices flowing. Hopefully, just hopefully, someone out there is actually gaining from all of it.

 

We could talk about politics but that is far too boring.

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

Yes! That's right apepch7, and as secretary of the 'non-delusional enlightenment system' your supposed to be making all the pay-per view arrangements but I haven't received a memo or any progress reports. I feel you are taking your responsibilities too lightly, if I had hired(lol)another more qualified person I feel sure Don King would already be involved. I suggest you go down to Dixons and get a 16k ram pack for your ZX81 in preparation for all the work your gonna be doing.

 

ZX81? I upgraded to a Spectrum days ago. Those rubber keys are killing me. I have provisionally booked the Olympic Stadium Rio De Janeiro (I know this might not be available for some time) but it has a big Jesus which I felt would add balance to the event. I did memo this to you via Telepathic Inc.'s "Mind-to-Mind" introductory free service ... so perhaps you should review your own memory log rather than accusing me of inactivity ... although they did advise me that the recipient must have a high level of sensitivity - so perhaps a look in the mirror on that one, eh?

 

I think we need a warm up bout from the minor religions to get the crowd ready for the big event. I wondered about Shinto vs. Wiccans ... what do you think? Should be plenty of blood and flesh on display which is what people look for these days.

 

 

 

Well, as I just had a very invigorating arguement with another Taoist I won't feel nearly so bad the next time I have one with V. or some other Buddhist.

 

So who is going to start a thread of something like "What Buddhism and Taoism have in Common"?

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Done it.

[Stigweard]

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Interesting that this is exactly what so many of us have been saying to you about your "interpretations" of both our posts and the Daodejing.

 

Like I said in the other thread. You are mis-understanding the meaning of the words beings used and trying to read your own meaning into them.

 

Buddhism is non-substantial non-dualism. Taoism is substantial non-dualism. Even though Tao is claimed to be beyond substance and concept. It's merely a way of saying, "it's the transcendent essence of all things."

 

This is not akin to Buddhist realization and has nothing to do with what I was saying.

[Vajrahridaya]

Loppon Namdrol:

 

There is no teaching in Buddhism higher than dependent origination. Whatever originates in dependence is empty. The view of Dzogchen, according to ChNN in his rdzogs chen skor dri len is the same as Prasanga Madhyamaka, with one difference only - Madhyamaka view is a result of intellectual analysis, Dzogchen view is not. Philosophically, however, they are the same. The view of Madhyamaka does not go beyond the view of dependent origination, since the Madhyamaka view is dependent origination. He also cites Sakya Pandita "If there were something beyond freedom from extremes, that would be an extreme."

 

Further, there is no rigpa to speak of that exists separate from the earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness that make up the universe and sentient beings. Rigpa is merely a different way of talking about these six things. In their pure state (their actual state) we talk about the radiance of the five wisdoms of rig pa. In their impure state we talk about how the five elements arise from consciousness. One coin, two sides. And it is completely empty from beginning to end, and top to bottom, free from all extremes and not established in anyway.

 

Dzogchen teachings also describe the process of how sentient being continue in an afflicted state (suffering), what is the cause of that afflicted state (suffering), that fact that afflicted state can cease (the cessation of suffering) and the correct path to end that suffering (the truth of the path). Dzogchen teachings describe the four noble truths in terms of dependent origination also.

 

Ergo, Dzogchen also does not go beyond Buddha's teaching of dependent origination which Nagarjuna describes in the following fashion:

 

I bow to him, the greatest of the teachers,

the Sambuddha, by whom dependent origination --

not ceasing, not arising

not annihilated, not permanent,

not going, not coming,

not diverse, not single,

was taught as peace

in order to pacify proliferation.

[Stigweard]

Like I said in the other thread. You are mis-understanding the meaning of the words beings used and trying to read your own meaning into them.

 

Buddhism is non-substantial non-dualism. Taoism is substantial non-dualism. Even though Tao is claimed to be beyond substance and concept. It's merely a way of saying, "it's the transcendent essence of all things."

 

This is not akin to Buddhist realization and has nothing to do with what I was saying.

No my friend I am reading the words exactly as they are written. You said is impermanence is permanent and universal and that it is the shared core of all things.

 

Unless you have a secret Buddhist New English dictionary, there is no other way to take these words other than for them to mean that impermanence is eternal and that all things are unified by impermanence. Thus, again, impermanence is the "eternal oneness" of Buddhism.

 

Unless of course you are drifting into ambiguous mystery.

[Vajrahridaya]

No my friend I am reading the words exactly as they are written. You said is impermanence is permanent and universal and that it is the shared core of all things.

 

Do you know what that means? Wow... seriously Stig.

 

That means that all things are impermanent... always. That's not establishing any sort of permanent essence.

 

Unless you have a secret Buddhist New English dictionary, there is no other way to take these words other than for them to mean that impermanence is eternal and that all things are unified by impermanence. Thus, again, impermanence is the "eternal oneness" of Buddhism.

 

Unless of course you are drifting into ambiguous mystery.

 

Stig... it's hopeless to talk with you. You want everything to be a Taoist interpretation so that you can feel safe in Taoism. Buddhists don't see Buddhism in every religion, we understand that only Buddhism teaches Buddhist view.

 

Like I said... all things are equally impermanent, but that means that nothing is established, not a Tao, not a Dharma, not a consciousness, not a one-ness, not a two-ness, not a many-ness. NOTHING is established, not even Buddhism and not even nothingness is established.

 

Your Taoist view is blocking you from seeing dependent origination. Don't say my Buddhist view is blocking me from seeing the Tao, because I don't care to see the Tao, I know that to see an essential and eternal oneness is not going to liberate me from unconscious rebirth.

 

Buddhism has never, ever established an eternal oneness, nor has it established an eternal nothingness. Not once, since the Buddha to Nagarjuna to Padmasambhava.

 

So... you are obviously not seeing what I'm saying because I'm not saying what you think I'm saying.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Stig... it's hopeless to talk with you. You want everything to be a Taoist interpretation so that you can feel safe in Taoism. Buddhists don't see Buddhism in every religion, we understand that only Buddhism teaches Buddhist view.

Wow ... I truly am amazed at how hypocritical you are. You have been doing nothing other than "wanting everything to be Buddhist".

 

Truly? Can't you see what you are doing?

Like I said... all things are equally impermanent, but that means that nothing is established, not a Tao, not a Dharma, not a consciousness, not a one-ness, not a two-ness, not a many-ness. NOTHING is established, not even Buddhism and not even nothingness is established.

If you truly believed and PRACTICED this then there would be nothing to argue for or against. There would be no way to establish superior or inferior. There would be nothing to transcend.

 

I'll say it again: Just drop it Vajrahridaya, please. I really am asking you sincerely to drop it. Let go of your campaign here to establish your Buddhist superiority, because it is an ultimately pointless endeavor. If all life is empty and impermanent then so to are your opinions of superiority.

[Vajrahridaya]

Wow ... I truly am amazed at how hypocritical you are. You have been doing nothing other than "wanting everything to be Buddhist".

 

No, I don't want everything to be Buddhist. I see that Buddhist view is superior, that is all. Thus, other traditions views are not Buddhist and don't lead to Buddhahood.

 

Stop bringing it back up again and again. I had let it go a while ago, but you went into this thread after my first post and starting arguing when I didn't mention Taoism once at all in my initial post.

 

Stop being defensive. I will correct your mis-assertions on Buddhism. I don't need to mention Taoism. But, I wish to clear up wrong assumptions about Buddhism. Which is all I was doing without mentioning any tradition, but merely the meaning of the view of Monism which I was showing Buddhism does not co-ordinate with.

 

You come up with your idea about my posts and then post it all over the place like an advertisement, calling me a hypocrite. When it's you that is mis-understanding the meaning. So... of course I'm going to clear that up. Why not? Because nothing is established, the view of non-proliferation should be expressed and experienced so that beings can realize their own liberation through the seed of receiving the Dharma teachings.

 

You go ahead and talk about Taoism. I was fine with that... I had consciously dropped the arguing, but you brought it up again. Just look back and you'll see. Why should I let peoples mis-understandings about Buddhism not be clarified? If they occur and I'm here and have the ability. Why not chime in? There are plenty here who are now reading Buddhist cosmology because of my efforts.

 

 

If all life is empty and impermanent then so to are your opinions of superiority.

 

By the way, empty in Buddhism does not mean empty like in an empty jar. It means things have relative existence and not intrinsic existence.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

No, I don't want everything to be Buddhist. I see that Buddhist view is superior, that is all. Thus, other traditions views are not Buddhist and don't lead to Buddhahood.

 

Stop bringing it back up again and again. I had let it go a while ago, but you went into this thread after my first post and starting arguing when I didn't mention Taoism once at all in my initial post.

 

Stop being defensive. I will correct your mis-assertions on Buddhism. I don't need to mention Taoism. But, I wish to clear up wrong assumptions about Buddhism. Which is all I was doing without mentioning any tradition, but merely the meaning of the view of Monism which I was showing Buddhism does not co-ordinate with.

 

You come up with your idea about my posts and then post it all over the place like an advertisement, calling me a hypocrite. When it's you that is mis-understanding the meaning. So... of course I'm going to clear that up. Why not? Because nothing is established, the view of non-proliferation should be expressed and experienced so that beings can realize their own liberation through the seed of receiving the Dharma teachings.

 

You go ahead and talk about Taoism. I was fine with that... I had consciously dropped the arguing, but you brought it up again. Just look back and you'll see. Why should I let peoples mis-understandings about Buddhism not be clarified? If they occur and I'm here and have the ability. Why not chime in? There are plenty here who are now reading Buddhist cosmology because of my efforts.

 

By the way, empty in Buddhism does not mean empty like in an empty jar. It means things have relative existence and not intrinsic existence.

Vajrahridaya, I suggest you print out your last post and, with it in hand, go back over every one of your posts and the responses you have received.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya, I suggest you print out your last post and, with it in hand, go back over every one of your posts and the responses you have received.

 

I've received many positive responses... even if less than the negative ones. The negative ones seem to have something personal to protect. That is all.

 

I do personally wish to protect the Dharma though, because of globalism, there is a proliferation of wrong views and Buddhism could die in the face of mushy new age all is one-ism.

 

There are plenty here who are now reading books that I've recommended. You, Songs, Marble (though we seem to get along mostly), Way, Fruitzilla, ralis, a few others... are not and constantly battle with my explanations of things. So what? That doesn't mean they are right.

 

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

I like that phrase I used yesterday so I am going to say it again here.

 

"... the realization of the inferiority of superiority." There is infinity in both directions from the mean. There is no such thing as superiority or inferiority.

 

Happy Trails!

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

ZX81? I upgraded to a Spectrum days ago. Those rubber keys are killing me. I have provisionally booked the Olympic Stadium Rio De Janeiro (I know this might not be available for some time) but it has a big Jesus which I felt would add balance to the event. I did memo this to you via Telepathic Inc.'s "Mind-to-Mind" introductory free service ... so perhaps you should review your own memory log rather than accusing me of inactivity ... although they did advise me that the recipient must have a high level of sensitivity - so perhaps a look in the mirror on that one, eh?

 

I think we need a warm up bout from the minor religions to get the crowd ready for the big event. I wondered about Shinto vs. Wiccans ... what do you think? Should be plenty of blood and flesh on display which is what people look for these days.

Done it.

 

Olympic stadium, big Jesus, that is a good angle. As for the Shinto vs. Wiccans we will definately have a rivalry there, the moment a 'shintoian' mentions that no one can actually prove the religion of Wicca has an actual history or lineage the fight will be on no problem*, I suggest Stonehenge as a venue,...not quite Wicca, but it'll p*ss the druids off, then they no doubt will want to fight the winner. I think it stands on its own as a main bout(what with the home crowd ticket sales).This'll go global for sure with rematches and contentions over judges decisions and the like, We're gonna make a fortune.....sorry, mistype....I will make a fortune and you will get a modest cut.

 

High level of sensitivity eh? Ya, I bagged that years ago due to unworkable differences between what I wanted to feel and what others felt and I could not prevent also experiencing! Rears it's ugly head from time to time mind you! If you really pull this whole thing off I'm gonna upgrade you with a Spectrum+! No more rubber keys for you. I can't say fairer than that now can?

 

*then again...perhaps it does!

Edited October 5, 2009 by Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that

[Vajrahridaya]

I like that phrase I used yesterday so I am going to say it again here.

 

"... the realization of the inferiority of superiority." There is infinity in both directions from the mean. There is no such thing as superiority or inferiority.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Practically speaking, there sure is. There is inferior realization and superior realization. There are those that are realized and see directly, and those that don't even walk the path.

 

Of course there are differences in realization.

[Marblehead]

Practically speaking, there sure is. There is inferior realization and superior realization. There are those that are realized and see directly, and those that don't even walk the path.

 

Of course there are differences in realization.

 

My point being, if the line is infinate, with superiority in one direction and inferiority in the opposite direction no matter where you are on the line, except at equilibrium there will always be something superior to your position and there will always be something inferior to your position.

 

And I suggest that this is true regarding all dualities.

 

So any time one positions oneself on any area of the line except the point of equilibrium (non-dualizm) one is in fact positioning oneself to be inferior to any point that is superior and the is no limit to the quantity of more superior positions.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

My point being, if the line is infinate, with superiority in one direction and inferiority in the opposite direction no matter where you are on the line, except at equilibrium there will always be something superior to your position and there will always be something inferior to your position.

 

And I suggest that this is true regarding all dualities.

 

So any time one positions oneself on any area of the line except the point of equilibrium (non-dualizm) one is in fact positioning oneself to be inferior to any point that is superior and the is no limit to the quantity of more superior positions.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Your talking about monist non-duality. Buddhism is a non-substantial non-duality so it see's differences and accepts them as reality, while seeing that they are all inherently empty of self existence, but still exist relatively and there is only relativity.

 

Buddhism is an entirely different way of seeing things. There is not an absolute oneness of things and sides. There is not a beyond concept that see's all things as equal. One see's that all things are equally empty of inherent existence, but that only relativity exists, thus there is superior view and inferior view.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Your talking about monist non-duality. Buddhism is a non-substantial non-duality so it see's differences and accepts them as reality, while seeing that they are all inherently empty of self existence, but still exist relatively and there is only relativity.

 

Buddhism is an entirely different way of seeing things. There is not an absolute oneness of things and sides. There is not a beyond concept that see's all things as equal. One see's that all things are equally empty of inherent existence, but that only relativity exists, thus there is superior view and inferior view.

 

So could you tell me just WTF all that means? Hehehe.

 

Nothing exists independantly but it is superior to whatever it is compared to? If it doesn't exist how can it be superior.

 

A blind man does not have superior sight. You just made all the stuff up.

 

Do you know the english language? Could you say all that over again in English?

 

How can something be non-dualistic and yet see differences? Come on now! Non-dualistic is exactly no differences - that is, non-comparing.

 

Yeah, there is something empty around here.

 

I'm sorry V. I had to modify one of your sentences above: Buddhism is an entirely different way of not seeing things.

 

So okay. If I were to accept your inaccurate picture of reality then it would be okay for me to say that your view is inferior to your view and you couldn't really argue against that statement because the statement is relative to the person making it so it is just as valid for me to say that concepts supporting the Buddhist view is an inferior view any you couldn't disagree with me because the statement exists relative to any other statement concerning the subject.

 

I like to talk about cause and effect. Funny that the world turns backward but we all get older.

 

Happy Trails!