What makes Buddhism different?

[Marblehead]

I meant in regards to Buddhism, nothing else. He was the first to regard the Buddhist doctrine as superior to all others.

 

Yeah, I knew what you meant, I just didn't want any misconceptions to be had by your readers. Hehehe.

 

I don't believe him to be right, I know him to be right.

 

Oh!, I have heard that from so many Christians about Jesus and/or their belief in God as told in the Bible. There are still those who believe that the earth is only 4800 years old and that man walked hand in paw with the dinosaurs.

 

I glad I'm a Taoist and don't claim to 'know' anything. (Well, except that I exist in this Manifest world.)

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry but the bits in bold are incomprehensible to me.

 

What do you mean by Cosmos?

 

thus wisdom is ultimate in the constant seeing of the emptiness of the relative and is not a self standing ultimate as if Cosmos was not a sum of it's parts and no more than that.

 

The ultimate wisdom is merely seeing that all minds and things are simultaneously interdependent and inherently empty all the time. Cosmos as in the term universe is merely denoting a whole bunch of things that are connected, but universe does not have it's own life. It is merely a term designating a whole assortment of processes that connect. Calling the universe God would be like calling our solar system the God of our planet. Or calling the planet the God of all beings on the planet. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

The part about infinite regress is stating that there is no rooftop concept as in a holistic Alpha that all things come from and that all things dissolve back into. For Buddhism, the Alpha of this universe is merely the results left over from the previous universe. So, there is no creator God, or single creator being. It's a circle, like A leading to Z actually leads back to A over and over again, without a primal cause. A primal cause is a rootop concept, like the Tao that is the mother of all beings, or Brahman which is the source of all existence. That would not hold true in Buddhist cosmology.

 

The term Dharmakaya denotes the endless creative matrix of mutually dependent phenomena and is really just talking about emptiness.

 

Yeah, I knew what you meant, I just didn't want any misconceptions to be had by your readers. Hehehe.

Oh!, I have heard that from so many Christians about Jesus and/or their belief in God as told in the Bible. There are still those who believe that the earth is only 4800 years old and that man walked hand in paw with the dinosaurs.

 

I glad I'm a Taoist and don't claim to 'know' anything. (Well, except that I exist in this Manifest world.)

 

Happy Trails!

 

Yes, omniscience of the nature of things is part of Buddhist realization. To be awake in Buddhism which is what Buddhahood means, is to know that you know.

 

So yes, it is different from Taoism in that it doesn't make excuses for ignorance. Buddhism says, you don't know now, but you can know if you practice the methodology and read the texts.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

It's all ego. Nothing is fixed. Suffering and joy, happiness and sadness, pleasure and pain, the whole panorama of contrast, go on, and there is absolutely nothing that any Buddhist can do about it.

 

We dissolve psychological suffering by seeing through everything. We don't stop experiencing things as they spontaneously arise, as in physical hardship, we just see the occurrences as luminous forms of the conscious realization of emptiness/dependent origination. So, we end up seeing Samsara as Nirvana through proper realization. We end up seeing all things as self liberated as they never truly were established to begin with. We just created habits of identity and preference due to misunderstanding of the nature of things. Now we accept things as they are and we flow with what happens without resistance and this is bliss. Since a Buddha sees causation, they see future effects and they see interconnectivity, so virtue naturally arises as does compassion so one benefits beings through expression naturally. A Buddha knows where he or she is going after death and they know what they were before they took on this life. No more unconscious rebirth and no more unconsciousness about the causes of this life. One is awake! The life that was suffering was due to not seeing correctly, but now that one does, there is no more psychological suffering. One has connected the dots. That's Buddhahood.

 

 

 

 

Like I said, you have basically invented a religion designed to answer your questions and as long as it does that you think it must be right. But I don't believe your answers. And I think that the obscurity of your syntax is meant to confuse the issue rather than clarify it.

 

I don't think it would be fruitful for me and you to continue this conversation, as you don't really care to learn about Buddhism. We are speaking two entirely different languages and you don't understand mine at all. Maybe others can talk in a way that leads you to understanding if they so wish to. If I can't speak clearly to you in the way that I know how to, then it's pointless to try right now.

 

All the best.

[Sunya]

there is no such thing as pure shentong or pure rantong, they are dependent. shentong is used to counter nihilist tendencies and rantong to counter eternalist tendencies. but there is no such thing as purely rantong or purely shentong because both methods are used. specifically in Tantra, shentong is used for meditative purposes and rantong for contemplative purposes. both are used together. so you can meditation with the view o buddha nature as existent and experience that in meditation but then you re-interpret that through teachings on emptiness.

[vsaluki]

The life that was suffering was due to not seeing correctly,

 

Psychological suffering is also relieved when those who are not Buddhists experience the world as unity. Compassion becomes superflous because all is self and life is lived that way. It's like someone telling you to be compassionate to yourself. It's unnecessary. Compassion outside of the unitive experience is mostly false because it is imposed as an ideal and a goal rather that having it occur as a spontaneous reaction.

 

The life that was suffering was due to not seeing correctly, but now that one does,

 

Well, at least one thinks one does.

[Sunya]

Psychological suffering is also relieved when those who are not Buddhists experience the world as unity. Compassion becomes superflous because all is self and life is lived that way. It's like someone telling you to be compassionate to yourself. It's unnecessary. Compassion outside of the unitive experience is mostly false because it is imposed as an ideal and a goal rather that having it occur as a spontaneous reaction.

Well, at least one thinks one does.

 

Buddhists don't see that as the end of suffering because there is still a very very very very subtle grasping. no longer grasping at the self, you grasp at the Self, or God, or Cosmos, or whatever name you want to give to the All or the One. that is a subtle grasping at a Grand Ego and will still cause psychological suffering because there isn't true freedom. true freedom is free falling without holding on.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Vajra,

 

With all due respect, why do you pour so much of yourself and your energy into this forum? Only a handful (really-a handful--20-or 30 or 50 maybe??)--follow these threads, especially when they become philosophical and obscure and esoteric, where you seem to feel you are at your best. Most people so far seem to not understand what you are saying, or find your delivery arrogant and somewhat affronting or offensive, and a few bystanders (maybe 10?) who 'get something' about Buddhism from your posting. Maybe this isn't the best forum for you, you do seem to rub a lot of people the wrong way (yes, I know, you get lots of PM's from people who think you're great).

 

Why not start your own "Personal Practice" section here? See who really wants to follow your wisdom and experience? Or better yet, start your own blog.

 

Or write a book. You've had lots of experiences in life, why not write about how this way out there Buddhist philosophy affects your day-to-day here-and-now? Think of all the hours you have furiously typed into a computer screen at all hours of the day and night to 'enlighten' who?...michaelz? If you're practicing your writing skills, maybe a better exercise would be to start a blog or website explaining this obscure philosophy to a beginner...maybe it will help you get clear enough to begin explaining your ideas effectively. I once told you in a thread that I have a degree in philosophy and I can't understand what the fuck you're saying most of the time (and you scoffed at those with "useless degrees"--now you are apparently considering an academic career-huh).

 

I just don't understand why you are so ardent to preach to such a lukewarm and oppositional audience. Don't you aspire a wider influence for these ideas of yours that you consider to be so superior and the Truth? Why waste your time with these threads that few read and then they disappear into the dusty attics of cyberspace? I often feel like I'm wasting precious time getting drawn into these discussion forums, so I make sure I stay away for periods of time... but really, what's the point of all this esoteric debate? What about the suffering in the world? What about action?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{message sent from my iphone from the inner chambers of the potala palace}

Edited September 22, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Sunya]

Can you not see what a load of bull that is? You are using "arises" as another word for "caused by" or "created by". But you have yet to explain how it is that this, that and the other are able to cause or create. You say that the power of causation is causation. You say that we don't have to be able to explain it because it has always been that way. I say that you are talking pure nonsense. I say that there is nothing that corresponds to your words. You are lost in your own words, and you think you have meaning. You don't. You drew a map and you said "this is reality". It's not.

 

But it is. it's quite observable, while a source of phenomena isn't, irrespective of believing in it. you have assumptions. you believe that phenomena need a source, that 'power of causation' has to be external and is somehow separate from the process itself. power, change, creation, these are all ideas you have in your head. they don't exist. they are empty concepts. observe reality, where is there power of creation? there is only flow, with no source.

 

You say that it's true because of your meditative experiences. I say that your meditative experiences are just more empty phenomena produced by the same source that produces all of your other phenomena, including suffering.

 

and where is this source? you are taking quite a leap of faith in not only believing in this source, which is unfindable, but giving it reality, identity and a name. you're crossing the red line into absurdity. I wish you well

 

Don't try to fix it. Buddhists want to delude themselves and think that there is something to fix and that they can be the source of the fix. It's all ego. Nothing is fixed. Suffering and joy, happiness and sadness, pleasure and pain, the whole panorama of contrast, go on, and there is absolutely nothing that any Buddhist can do about it.

 

that's what you believe, and that's fine. accepting the way things are is a step towards fixing it because the source is mental not externally or physically. Buddhist monks trying to free seagulls is an act of their compassion toward suffering beings, the real fixing is done inside by letting go of grasping and embracing the freedom of spontaneous selfless action without a doer. so there is absolutely something that every Buddhist and non-Buddhist can do about suffering, let go of that grasping. and see the emptiness of it all.

 

Emptiness is a condition, not a source. not nothingness. Like a Rainbow is empty, it exists dependent on specific conditions and causes, and is compounded, and theres nothing there to grasp. try to touch a Rainbow. but its still there... its seemingly real. Emptiness is form and Form is emptiness.

Edited September 22, 2009 by mikaelz

[Marblehead]

Yes, omniscience of the nature of things is part of Buddhist realization. To be awake in Buddhism which is what Buddhahood means, is to know that you know.

 

So yes, it is different from Taoism in that it doesn't make excuses for ignorance. Buddhism says, you don't know now, but you can know if you practice the methodology and read the texts.

 

And you know how thrilled I am whenever I hear someone stating that they know beyond a shadow of doubt?

 

And this is why I remind folks that what I say with my own words are nothing more than my opinions and understandings.

 

However, to your usage of the word ignorance as it was associated with Taoism I feel bound to say that it is the Buddhists who think they know the unknowable who are overwhelmed with ignorance.

 

Do you think it is possible that most Taoist don't really care how enlightened the Buddha supposed was and therefore we really don't care how enlightened those who read the writtings attributed to him think they are?

 

Happy Trails!

Edited September 22, 2009 by Marblehead

[Stigweard]

I explained to you pretty thoroughly why the word reification is used and how it directly relates to what is being said. why did you spend 20 minutes writing such a useless post? i'm sorry if that sounds offensive but i'm pretty astonished at how much mental masturbating people do to avoid something that is staring them in the face. it's as if you're purposely avoiding what is being discussed..

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

reification is to make real. "real" in a metaphysical context means to exist independent of conditions, synonym for "true". truth cannot be dependent on circumstance, conditions, or causes. truth simply is. since reification is to make 'real' it is considered wrong in Buddhism because 'truth' is unmanufactered, so in essence when you reify the Tao you are making it real but only subjectively. since that 'Tao' or whatever you want to call it is dependent upon the idea of Tao, and not irrespective of your believing in it. to hold an abstraction as true means you will create that reality for yourself and leading yourself to error in actually experiencing truth.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Vajrahridaya]

few bystanders (maybe 10?) who 'get something' about Buddhism from your posting.

That's wonderful!!

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think it is possible that most Taoist don't really care how enlightened the Buddha supposed was and therefore we really don't care how enlightened those who read the writtings attributed to him think they are?

 

Happy Trails!

 

Yes sure. But that's why I'm not Taoist. I like the path to knowing, not ambiguity.

 

However the dualistic notion of beingness and nothingness are transcended as Tao is seen as the unity of both the manifest and unmanifest universe, both existing simultaneously.

 

So it's the reality of all concepts and non-concepts... that's reify. From a Buddhist POV.

 

If it's not real, but it's the mother of all things, then how are things tangible? Buddhism explains that things are tangible due to endless causation and grasping at makes things more and more frictional and tangible on an experiential level. Not that there is a single source beyond the manifest that manifests things. Yes, there is the formless potentiality that holds information in an unmanifest state that due to causes and conditions allows for future arising such as a big bang. But that is dependent and not an independent source of existence. It seems to me that you are giving independence to this center of the cosmos and that you are granting it the power of being the "source" of all things and the prime mover of all movement. Just as the Tao De Ching says. So... that sounds pretty ultimately real to me. Thus... it is a reification from a Buddhist POV.

[Marblehead]

That's wonderful!!

Yes sure. But that's why I'm not Taoist. I like the path to knowing, not ambiguity.

 

Control your ego fella!

 

You like the path to confusion, I think.

 

10 is a gross overstatement, I think.

 

I'm here just making sure you don't say anything negative about Taoism.

 

Happy Trails!

 

BTW

 

I like the path to knowing, not ambiguity.

 

I think you are on the wrong path if that is your goal. You should become a Christian.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Control your ego fella!

 

You like the path to confusion, I think.

 

10 is a gross overstatement, I think.

 

I'm hear just making sure you don't say anything negative about Taoism.

 

Happy Trails!

 

But, I'm just using your own words and statements. I find it egotistical to limit people to your own perceived limitations. "If I don't know... how can that person know! How arrogant!"

 

Do you see?

 

 

Yes sure. But that's why I'm not Taoist. I like the path to knowing, not ambiguity.

 

I think you are on the wrong path if that is your goal. You should become a Christian.

 

No... Buddhas know. I find that Buddhas know the most in fact with utter clarity. I've read Taoist texts, Christian mystics, Sufi's... on and on. Buddhism is the clearest. I haven't read the very, very secret Taoist texts. I also still use the I-Ching. I like Taoism. I just haven't found that it leads to the same absolute freedom from unconscious rebirth. Something you don't believe in to begin with. So we are playing on different fields of experience and questioning.

 

 

See, I am self assured about topics many of you are ambiguous about. And because I'm self assured about things that you may not agree with, it's called, arrogance. But if you agreed with me or had the same findings and it accorded with your own logic, then arrogance would not even be experienced, you would experience happy agreement. But since you don't, my self assuredness is called arrogance.

 

So be it!

[Marblehead]

 

So it's the reality of all concepts and non-concepts... that's reify. From a Buddhist POV.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Happy Trails!

[Marblehead]

But, I'm just using your own words and statements. I find it egotistical to limit people to your own perceived limitations. "If I don't know... how can that person know! How arrogant!"

 

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

 

Do you see?

No... Buddhas know. I find that Buddhas know the most in fact with utter clarity. I've read Taoist texts, Christian mystics, Sufi's... on and on. Buddhism is the clearest. I haven't read the very, very secret Taoist texts. I also still use the I-Ching. I like Taoism. I just haven't found that it leads to the same absolute freedom from unconscious rebirth. Something you don't believe in to begin with. So we are playing on different fields of experience and questioning.

 

Buddha is dead!!!!! Those you speak of are imitators. But you have not found the freedom you think you have found else you would not be defending your belief all the time. And especially you would not be suggesting that your belief is better that others.

 

See, I am self assured about topics many of you are ambiguous about. And because I'm self assured about things that you may not agree with, it's called, arrogance. But if you agreed with me or had the same findings and it accorded with your own logic, then arrogance would not even be experienced, you would experience happy agreement. But since you don't, my self assuredness is called arrogance.

 

So be it!

 

You are self assured with ignorance when it comes to expressing yourself in a non-abrasive way. You don't know everything! That's a fact. You have no idea what I am wearing at this very moment. No, your self-assuredness is an expression of your ego. Ask your girlfriend. I'll bet she would agree that your ego is far larger than is your penis.

 

Like I have said many times before. I have no problem with any Buddhist here discussing Buddhism. But the moment you start pretending that Buddhism is superior to Taoism you have stepped over the line.

 

You are not a Taoist so you have no right to compare yourself with any Taoist. Compare yourself with other Buddhists.

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

I think maybe that there is a huge difference between Buddhist philosophical debate and the actual practice of Buddhism. I am not saying they are contradictory but that the first is about developing a 'view' in order to help you practice and the other is actual practice, gaining merit and realizing the true nature of mind (or however you want to put it). Realizing voidity is very different to expressing an intellectual position around voidity. This occurs to me when reading this thread.

 

I agree with whoever said that using Buddhism to deconstruct Taoism is a pointless task (or words to that effect).

 

The most interesting thing to me is how uncomfortable people seem to be with people holding strong and different views to them. This seems neither Buddhist or Taoist. Buddhist are not supposed to criticize other teachings and Taoists do not work through oppositional forces ... but going with the flow (to use a crap and over used phrase). So what's the problem?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are self assured with ignorance when it comes to expressing yourself in a non-abrasive way. You don't know everything! That's a fact. You have no idea what I am wearing at this very moment. No, your self-assuredness is an expression of your ego. Ask your girlfriend. I'll bet she would agree that your ego is far larger than is your penis.

 

 

 

 

Marble,

 

My guess is you are wearing MC Hammer style trousers (orange) and a medieval tabard with heraldic lions on it. Am I close?

[Chang San Feng]

[Marblehead]

I think maybe that there is a huge difference between Buddhist philosophical debate and the actual practice of Buddhism. I am not saying they are contradictory but that the first is about developing a 'view' in order to help you practice and the other is actual practice, gaining merit and realizing the true nature of mind (or however you want to put it). Realizing voidity is very different to expressing an intellectual position around voidity. This occurs to me when reading this thread.

 

I agree with whoever said that using Buddhism to deconstruct Taoism is a pointless task (or words to that effect).

 

The most interesting thing to me is how uncomfortable people seem to be with people holding strong and different views to them. This seems neither Buddhist or Taoist. Buddhist are not supposed to criticize other teachings and Taoists do not work through oppositional forces ... but going with the flow (to use a crap and over used phrase). So what's the problem?

 

Hi Apepch7,

 

Thanks for the kindly post.

 

So what's the problem?

 

This is a Taoist forum. When someone suggests that Taoism is an inferior belief system and that their's is the only true belief system it is only resonable that a Taoist would object to such nonsense.

 

This will not become a Buddhist forum. It's just that simple. There are Buddhist forums where people talk about Buddhist concepts. That's good.

 

The Buddhism we see here is not, in my opinion, representative of the belief system. Buddhism is a kindly belief system and that is why it so easily interlaced with Taoism many years ago.

 

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

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

Marble,

 

My guess is you are wearing MC Hammer style trousers (orange) and a medieval tabard with heraldic lions on it. Am I close?

 

Hehehe. Not even close. Only a pair of non-supportive shorts. That's it. Grey in color.

 

Thanks for the laughs.

 

Happy Trails!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Vajra, are you not beginning to see a pattern here on this and many other threads you have participated in? Why are you wasting your valuable enlightened time on us low-level seekers? A high and enlightened being such as you hanging out to sing your superiority on some obscure internet forum? Don't you have bigger fish to fry?

[Sunya]

My guess is you are wearing MC Hammer style trousers (orange) and a medieval tabard with heraldic lions on it. Am I close?

 

dude I have pants like that that I got from India and they are so comfortable. i love them, but whenever I wear them in public people stare at me.

[Apech]

Hi Apepch7,

 

...

 

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

 

Agreed.

 

Hehehe. Not even close. Only a pair of non-supportive shorts. That's it. Grey in color.

 

Thanks for the laughs.

 

Happy Trails!

 

I think you should give up if even your shorts don't support you!

[Marblehead]

 

I think you should give up if even your shorts don't support you!

 

Hehehe. I better not say anything.

 

Happy Trails!

[Chang San Feng]

no, but since Buddhism is alien to Western languages unlike Sanskrit or Tibetan... it's difficult to find proper words and usages... gotta do the best we can.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

 

"Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified."

 

what Vajrahridaya is saying about reification is not simply making an abstract idea into a reality.. but rather taking that definition one step further. because in Buddhism, ideas make up your reality. they are a filter. therefore having an abstract idea about reality will interpret your experience according to that abstraction and thus make that abstraction concrete and real. The abstraction and conceptualization pertaining to the nature of things is seen as an error in Buddhism specifically due to this point.

 

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

[Lucky7Strikes]

I just find that Taoism does not reveal the same clarity because it does not have the same clarity.

 

That's why it's said that the Tao is mysterious. To find is to not know of it. It is an approach to a spiritual Path that is different from Buddhism. You have to understand that the whole structure of Taoism is different from other religions in its variety and flexibility. I dare say it is more close to science.

 

Moreover, mystery does not equate reify. If I wrote "change" is the "source" of everything, it wouldn't necessarily be wrong. But now you would say that it is to reify the term "change" which is quite ridiculous.

 

Taoism does not begin with "life is suffering," nor is there a "salvation" from that suffering. So to say that Taoism does not lead to a higher Truth or freedom is a mistake. There isn't a destination: there is only the Path.

 

There are people who like to follow Buddhism because it is clear and there are set goals. I've been reading over the Sutras over lately and the Buddha's words are very, very straightforward (or maybe something came out of all those posts! ). Even more so than the interpretations.

 

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

 

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

 

Great post!

Edited September 22, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Mal]

Everyone who doesn't understand me seems to wish I were dead.

No just quieter. In your defense you do seem to be limiting yourself to Buddhist threads. Yourself and Marblehead do put in a lot of energy into TTB, being the only '09 members in the top 50 by # of posts.

 

With all due respect, why do you pour so much of yourself and your energy into this forum?

 

Isn't there some sort of e-sanga ban in place? Or have I misremembered.

{I only skim these sort of threads when I'm really bored as I too find the long techi posts lost in circular quibbles over definitions}