A serious question about Taoism and the role of motivation.

[Birch Tree]

Hello fellow Taobums,

 

Recently, I had the chance to hear an authentic Tibetan Buddhist Lama speak. She gave an excellent talk about impermanence. It was a wonderful talk and I found myself (a practicing Taoist) agreeing with most of it. I was fortunate enough to have the chance to ask her a question and I asked her something along the lines of the following (I don't recall exactly how I phrased it, but it was something like this):

 

"Many Taoists, myself included, handle impermanence by looking inward and seeking the Tao--which is permanent. It would seem to me that striving to realize the Tao would lead people to better understand their own true nature and thus make them more complete people. It also would help people come to grips with the impermance in the world around them. Can you expound on the difference between striving to realize the Tao and Buddhist enlightenment?"

 

Allow me to paraphrase her answer (since I don't remember it word-for-word):

 

"Why do you want to realize the Tao? What is your motivation for wanting to realize the Tao? Is it because you want to become wise? Or is it because you want to help others to realize the Tao? It may be possible for you to realize the Tao, but trying to realizing the Tao for selfish reasons or impure motivations is not the proper path. If you seek to realize the Tao for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings, then you generate virtue and your path is pure. Your motivation is the key. When your motivation (in all things) is completely selfless, and you have completely obliterated your self-centeredness, then you attain enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a phrase we should throw about carelessly. This is something that is different than realizing the Tao."

 

I then kindly thanked her for her answer--it has given me much to think about.

 

I have been under the assumption that I should look inward for the Tao, since as Chuang Tzu says: "There is no place that the Tao is not", thus if the Tao is in me that is probably one of the easiest places for me to find it. As I meditate and still the mind, my belief is that I come closer to realizing the eternal. In doing so, I make myself a better person and after significant cultivation I should then look outward to help the world. The Lama's answer suggests something completely different though: improve yourself by improving the world. This means that the process is simultaneously--one need not cultivate oneself first and then look to improve the world. One can improve oneself while improving the world at the same time. Maybe this kind of practice is seeking to see the Tao in the world as opposed to looking inward during meditation?

 

Also, before I had heard her answer, I had never really seriously reflected on WHY I wanted to seek the Tao. Upon truthful introspection, I found my motivation for seeking the Tao quite selfish, at least in the short-term. I want to understand the nature of the eternal, and I want to get to know myself better in the process. I don't think these motivations are intrinsically bad, but they are certainly not selfless.

 

So I ask in all seriousness, what about the role of motivation in the seeking of the Tao? After meditating and thinking about the Lama's answer to my question, I am coming to believe that one's motivation might be important.

 

So, I humbly ask for your serious thoughts and reflections on all of this. I am not trying to start another Taoist-Buddhist border conflict here on the forums, (and I hope that we can remain civil and respectful in our disagreements). My question is a serious philosophical one and I look forward hearing your thoughts on these matters.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

[Tree04]

Hello fellow Taobums,

 

Recently, I had the chance to hear an authentic Tibetan Buddhist Lama speak. She gave an excellent talk about impermanence. It was a wonderful talk and I found myself (a practicing Taoist) agreeing with most of it. I was fortunate enough to have the chance to ask her a question and I asked her something along the lines of the following (I don't recall exactly how I phrased it, but it was something like this):

 

"Many Taoists, myself included, handle impermanence by looking inward and seeking the Tao--which is permanent. It would seem to me that striving to realize the Tao would lead people to better understand their own true nature and thus make them more complete people. It also would help people come to grips with the impermance in the world around them. Can you expound on the difference between striving to realize the Tao and Buddhist enlightenment?"

 

Allow me to paraphrase her answer (since I don't remember it word-for-word):

 

"Why do you want to realize the Tao? What is your motivation for wanting to realize the Tao? Is it because you want to become wise? Or is it because you want to help others to realize the Tao? It may be possible for you to realize the Tao, but trying to realizing the Tao for selfish reasons or impure motivations is not the proper path. If you seek to realize the Tao for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings, then you generate virtue and your path is pure. Your motivation is the key. When your motivation (in all things) is completely selfless, and you have completely obliterated your self-centeredness, then you attain enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a phrase we should throw about carelessly. This is something that is different than realizing the Tao."

 

I then kindly thanked her for her answer--it has given me much to think about.

 

I have been under the assumption that I should look inward for the Tao, since as Chuang Tzu says: "There is no place that the Tao is not", thus if the Tao is in me that is probably one of the easiest places for me to find it. As I meditate and still the mind, my belief is that I come closer to realizing the eternal. In doing so, I make myself a better person and after significant cultivation I should then look outward to help the world. The Lama's answer suggests something completely different though: improve yourself by improving the world. This means that the process is simultaneously--one need not cultivate oneself first and then look to improve the world. One can improve oneself while improving the world at the same time. Maybe this kind of practice is seeking to see the Tao in the world as opposed to looking inward during meditation?

 

Also, before I had heard her answer, I had never really seriously reflected on WHY I wanted to seek the Tao. Upon truthful introspection, I found my motivation for seeking the Tao quite selfish, at least in the short-term. I want to understand the nature of the eternal, and I want to get to know myself better in the process. I don't think these motivations are intrinsically bad, but they are certainly not selfless.

 

So I ask in all seriousness, what about the role of motivation in the seeking of the Tao? After meditating and thinking about the Lama's answer to my question, I am coming to believe that one's motivation might be important.

 

So, I humbly ask for your serious thoughts and reflections on all of this. I am not trying to start another Taoist-Buddhist border conflict here on the forums, (and I hope that we can remain civil and respectful in our disagreements). My question is a serious philosophical one and I look forward hearing your thoughts on these matters.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

 

Hey Bro, I wish I could have been there, that sounds awesome! I bet the energy in the room was just radiating!

 

Funny you mention border wars: it reminds me of Plato and Aristotle; both studied under Socrates' philosophy. Plato focused his philosophy inward (predominately on the nature of truth, for example, when you use a ruler to draw a line, it is not a true straight line, because of the imperfections of the ruler, made by human hands. However, the idea of the the straight line is in our minds, and it is the Ultimate Striaight Line). Whereas Aristotle, having a doctor for a father, focused on outward virtue (the Nichomachean Ethics) as a means towards truth in action. Is one right and the other wrong, or are they just focused on different, yet complimentary things?

 

I don't know what border wars you (Taoists) have with me (background predominately Buddhist), but I think the two are mutually inclusive and necessary, from my experience. That's why I like spending time on this forum. Taoists bring to light the importance of focusing on the self, and Buddhists concentrate their energy on right action towards others to allieviate suffering. It's like you tomato, I say tomato:) Perhaps this border war generally depends on what each indiviual needs in order to progress. For example, at times I care so much about the world that I forget I need to take care of myself, that's when I know I need to look inward through meditation to rejuvenate my inner energy, and use a Taoist approach. On the other hand, sometimes I get so self involved that I become depressed because I am a social being, and then I use a Buddhist approach, and I again, rejuvinate my inner energy, but by focusing it outwards through good deeds.

 

You mentioned that you felt selfish about learning the Tao, but when you say that I think of what Buddhism says: there is either foolish selfishness, or wise selfishness, where foolish selfishness describes those who are over-involved in the Earth-Life System as we know it: life feeds on life in order to survive, or wisely selfish, were we cultivate our spirituality, for our own gain but also help those that we pass.

 

I know you brother, and I don't think there's anything intrinsically selfish about your motivations: which is the search for truth, Tao, enlightenment, for the spirit to live on and to not let the house builder build any more houses for you, am I right? My goal is the same, and I love how me being from a Buddhist practice and you from Taoist, we continue to learn from eachother. So there are no lines drawn in the sand here:) I always thought that was a dangerous mentality. We have the same goal, same wish for understanding, yet we are two different people, we have different, yet parallel paths and make use of what we have to get to the same goal.

 

I would like to also note, when the speaker asked if it realizing the Tao is for the betterment of other sentient beings, she brings up an interesting point. Perhaps you could see Taoism as you're internal training, where Buddhism allows you to excerise, or test what you have learned. And then from that, you can see how much you actually have accomplished. It's like a doctor who read from a textbook and knows the body inside and out, but until you've actually operated on someone do you know how skilled you are.

 

As the Buddha said, taking refuge in the forest and hills to meditate is not always the best way to enlightenment. They may help you to focus, but it may be wiser to surround yourself with those who are wiser than you, so you can learn, and then next time you interact with the spiritually immature, you will act correctly.

 

You cannot ignore the spiritually immature world around you. You are part of it, and you have a choice on how you interact with it, but interaction is most certainly inevitable.

 

These are just my humble thoughts.

Tree04

[Tree04]

Sorry for the spelling errors, you know how fast I write. I should learn to proofread.

Tree04

[Tree04]

 

I have been under the assumption that I should look inward for the Tao, since as Chuang Tzu says: "There is no place that the Tao is not", thus if the Tao is in me that is probably one of the easiest places for me to find it.

 

One last thing brother: "There is no place that the Tao is not." Just something for you to think about: do you know how many people don't even know themselves? So if there is no place that the Tao is not, then even if you don't feel you know yourself, then perhaps you can find it in other people, situations and therefore reveal the Tao in you by discovering it in others? I'm not enlightened, because I'm still learning things about myself: a work in progress, I call it.

Tree04

[goldisheavy]

Hello fellow Taobums,

 

Recently, I had the chance to hear an authentic Tibetan Buddhist Lama speak. She gave an excellent talk about impermanence. It was a wonderful talk and I found myself (a practicing Taoist) agreeing with most of it. I was fortunate enough to have the chance to ask her a question and I asked her something along the lines of the following (I don't recall exactly how I phrased it, but it was something like this):

 

"Many Taoists, myself included, handle impermanence by looking inward and seeking the Tao--which is permanent. It would seem to me that striving to realize the Tao would lead people to better understand their own true nature and thus make them more complete people. It also would help people come to grips with the impermance in the world around them. Can you expound on the difference between striving to realize the Tao and Buddhist enlightenment?"

 

Allow me to paraphrase her answer (since I don't remember it word-for-word):

 

"Why do you want to realize the Tao? What is your motivation for wanting to realize the Tao? Is it because you want to become wise? Or is it because you want to help others to realize the Tao? It may be possible for you to realize the Tao, but trying to realizing the Tao for selfish reasons or impure motivations is not the proper path. If you seek to realize the Tao for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings, then you generate virtue and your path is pure. Your motivation is the key. When your motivation (in all things) is completely selfless, and you have completely obliterated your self-centeredness, then you attain enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a phrase we should throw about carelessly. This is something that is different than realizing the Tao."

 

First of all, this lama is a fake one, no doubt about it, based on her approach. Real Buddhists understand that the truth is beyond the 4 extremes and act like it. They don't say stupid shit like "OBLITERATE YOURSELF MORON!!!" That's not Buddhism at all.

 

On the flip-side your understanding of Taoism and especially of Chuang Tzu is just miserable, and thus you find yourself very affected by this woman.

 

Tao is not something "permanent". Where do you get this from? Lao Tzu starts off this way, "I don't know what to call it, so I'll call it Tao." When you read Chuang Tzu, Chuant Tzu constantly says, read this very carefully, as if you are holding a hot iron ball, or as if you are walking on thin ice... meaning, do not grasp too tightly what is being said! All these pithy instructions must have went right over your head or something, because you seem to think you know what Tao is when even Lao Tzu didn't know what Tao was and was just speaking approximately.

 

Chuang Tzu is damn careful not to say "and then you realize Tao". He always says things like, "and then you are very near Tao". He never says what is Tao and nor does he say "here it is, this is what happens when you realize it." Never. One would think the pithiness of this would be valuable, but apparently it goes over some people's heads.

 

I then kindly thanked her for her answer--it has given me much to think about.

 

I have been under the assumption that I should look inward for the Tao, since as Chuang Tzu says: "There is no place that the Tao is not", thus if the Tao is in me that is probably one of the easiest places for me to find it. As I meditate and still the mind, my belief is that I come closer to realizing the eternal. In doing so, I make myself a better person and after significant cultivation I should then look outward to help the world. The Lama's answer suggests something completely different though: improve yourself by improving the world. This means that the process is simultaneously--one need not cultivate oneself first and then look to improve the world. One can improve oneself while improving the world at the same time. Maybe this kind of practice is seeking to see the Tao in the world as opposed to looking inward during meditation?

 

Also, before I had heard her answer, I had never really seriously reflected on WHY I wanted to seek the Tao. Upon truthful introspection, I found my motivation for seeking the Tao quite selfish, at least in the short-term. I want to understand the nature of the eternal, and I want to get to know myself better in the process. I don't think these motivations are intrinsically bad, but they are certainly not selfless.

 

So I ask in all seriousness, what about the role of motivation in the seeking of the Tao? After meditating and thinking about the Lama's answer to my question, I am coming to believe that one's motivation might be important.

 

So, I humbly ask for your serious thoughts and reflections on all of this. I am not trying to start another Taoist-Buddhist border conflict here on the forums, (and I hope that we can remain civil and respectful in our disagreements). My question is a serious philosophical one and I look forward hearing your thoughts on these matters.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

 

There is no solid difference between self and other. If you understand this, and as a Taoist, you should dispute the boundary between self and other, then you can see how improving yourself you improve all. Improving all you improve yourself. There is no contradiction and no problem. You can work for your own benefit, and as long as your understanding of yourself is expansive and wise, you will naturally benefit everything around you by benefitting yourself.

 

The problem with ordinary people is that their self-conception is extremely narrow and constipated, thus when they benefit themselves they hurt everything around them. This is a result of polarizing self and other, of not truly understanding what it is you are. It's lack of self-knowledge.

 

Kill the Buddha.

[Marblehead]

I will get back to this later but I just want to pose two questions at the moment:

 

How can one help others if they cannot help themself?

 

How can one give their excess to others if they, themself, are lacking?

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

The first person one directs loving-kindness at is oneself, before radiating it out to all beings. The concrete self is illusory, but Buddhists try to attain realization and wisdom, not obliterate oneself. The only things we obliterate are delusion, ignorance, craving, irrational clinging and suffering. (for the benefit of all sentient beings, including oneself)

Edited September 29, 2009 by nac

[Birch Tree]

Tree04:

 

Hey sis! Thanks for your thoughts--they are always welcome. The "border war" that I am referring to in my original post is a tendency on these forums for discussions of Taoism vs. Buddhism to degenerate. I don't want this post to turn into a "border war" of this sort.

 

Your idea about the balance of external and internal makes sense to me. I find this idea appealing. In my readings of Taoist works, I have not seen the role of intention displayed as prominently as it is in Buddhist texts. Perhaps it is time for me to try to restore balance to my life by focusing outwardly after focusing inwardly for so long. I am beginning to feel that I know myself better. I don't know myself as well as I need to--and like you said, I am still a work in progress too. However, looking inwardly has been enormously beneficial to me. However, what you said also reflects my feelings about the Tao--if there is nowhere where it is not, then it can be sought through helping others as well. I like this balanced approach to seeking the Tao.

 

 

goldisheavy:

 

Thanks for your thoughts. There is no doubt that the Lama I heard was authentic. My paraphrasing of her answer certainly does not do her answer to my question justice. She gave a very long and detailed answer to me couched in Buddhist terms (honestly, I don't recall all the details of her answer because she spoke on my question for over 10 minutes), and my paraphrasing of it reflects my understanding of her answer from my point of view.

 

Also, I am a relatively new student of Taoism--it is not my childhood tradition, but is something that I discovered later on in my life. I readily admit that I do not know all of the ins-and-outs of Taoism. But I am an honest student of life--hopefully that counts for something.

 

I do recall that Chuang Tzu saying things like being "near to the Tao." Perhaps I missed the nuance between "realizing the Tao" and being "near to the Tao." If it was a mistake, it was an honest one I assure you. Still, I do not claim to "grasp the Tao." I deliberately avoided using words like this because I know that the Tao is not something that one can consciously grasp. One may become aware of the Tao when one deliberately tries not to grasp it--this is what I meant when I used the wording "realizing the Tao." I did not mean the phrase "realizing the Tao" to be equated with a total understanding of the Tao or some ability to use the Tao on command. I chose this phrase in my question to the Lama because I wanted to know her thoughts on the difference between the Taoist search for the Tao and Buddhist enlightenment. I didn't know how else to ask the question at the time, and I only had a few moments to think about how to craft the question before I asked it.

 

Also, the translation of the Tao Te Ching that I use (English & Feng) makes reference to the eternal Tao, and speaks of how the Tao ultimately was the source that gave rise to the 10,000 things (which I take to be the world around us). This is where I got the idea for the permanence of the Tao.

 

Lastly, I appreciate the point you made about the distinction between self and others being artificial. I have heard this before, but honestly I had not given it much thought. Yet this seems like a critical idea. I will have to reflect on this idea some more.

 

Lastly--Thanks for Tree04 and goldisheavy for your thoughts. These are the kind of posts that are thought-provoking and helpful. I hope the posts to come will also be as thoughtful as yours.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

[goldisheavy]

Thanks for your thoughts. There is no doubt that the Lama I heard was authentic.

 

There are two definitions of "authentic". One is, she has a historical lineage transmission. In that case, she probably is "authentic." The other is "wise." In that case, she is not authentic, because her speech is unwise. She's way too categorical, way too cut-n-dry for someone who should know better. Do you know what the 4 extremes are in Buddhism? The extreme position of considering something to exist (is), is one. Then to not exist (is not) is two, and then two combinations of those (both is and is not) and (neither is nor is not). Now authentic Buddhists understand that all phenomena are beyond the 4 extremes of existence, thus it is very deceitful to talk so simply and categorically to a person, without any nuance. There is grave danger in presenting selflessness as some kind of activity that removes ego! Selflessness is nothing like that, not even slightly. Selflessness in Buddhism is not an action, nor is it like draining, nor removing something, nor emptying out, nor like obliterating anything. To present some phenomenon, any phenomenon as a result of selflessness is utterly misguided, because all phenomena are already flawlessly selfless as is, at all times. Even the notion of selflessness itself is not quite correct, because it's not an actual reliable permanent delineation that you can trust at the ultimate level. But on a relative level you need a healthy strong ego.

 

The point is simple. Real lamas, and by real I mean wise lamas and not just someone with a certificate from another lama, are very nuanced and subtle in how they talk about things. They don't make these categorical statements, especially not when they mean to help you or not when they didn't setup a proper context for making a categorical statement.

 

My paraphrasing of her answer certainly does not do her answer to my question justice. She gave a very long and detailed answer to me couched in Buddhist terms (honestly, I don't recall all the details of her answer because she spoke on my question for over 10 minutes), and my paraphrasing of it reflects my understanding of her answer from my point of view.

 

This is the only hope! Because if her answer is even a little close to what you said, it is not a good one at all. Definitely not worthy of lama status. I'm explaining to you in some detail what's wrong with her statement so you can judge for yourself.

 

Also, I am a relatively new student of Taoism--it is not my childhood tradition, but is something that I discovered later on in my life. I readily admit that I do not know all of the ins-and-outs of Taoism. But I am an honest student of life--hopefully that counts for something.

 

It counts for a lot. But you're in a very vulnerable state now. Any figure of authority can deceive you easily. You have a weak spiritual immunity to bullshit yet. This will come with time.

 

I do recall that Chuang Tzu saying things like being "near to the Tao." Perhaps I missed the nuance between "realizing the Tao" and being "near to the Tao."

 

Indeed. Chuang Tzu is not something that can be understood well upon the first reading, or even upon the fifth reading. It's a text that you can read 100 times and still continue to gain new insights. Why is that? That's because most of it is in the form of good questions, either implied or explicit. Chuang Tzu makes hardly any assertions, if at all. Instead Chuang Tzu takes a look at what's commonly asserted by various people and has a good chuckle at it.

 

If it was a mistake, it was an honest one I assure you. Still, I do not claim to "grasp the Tao." I deliberately avoided using words like this because I know that the Tao is not something that one can consciously grasp. One may become aware of the Tao when one deliberately tries not to grasp it--this is what I meant when I used the wording "realizing the Tao." I did not mean the phrase "realizing the Tao" to be equated with a total understanding of the Tao or some ability to use the Tao on command. I chose this phrase in my question to the Lama because I wanted to know her thoughts on the difference between the Taoist search for the Tao and Buddhist enlightenment. I didn't know how else to ask the question at the time, and I only had a few moments to think about how to craft the question before I asked it.

 

Also, the translation of the Tao Te Ching that I use (English & Feng) makes reference to the eternal Tao, and speaks of how the Tao ultimately was the source that gave rise to the 10,000 things (which I take to be the world around us). This is where I got the idea for the permanence of the Tao.

 

Lastly, I appreciate the point you made about the distinction between self and others being artificial. I have heard this before, but honestly I had not given it much thought. Yet this seems like a critical idea. I will have to reflect on this idea some more.

 

Tao is a special concept meant for training the mind. Tao is not an actual object somewhere. Tao is not an essence of any kind either. Tao is just a way to hint at transcendence, but it's not even transcendence in and of itself. All this and I still didn't describe Tao. That's how it should be. I think if you read Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu, you'll begin to understand why the word "Tao" was invented.

Edited September 29, 2009 by goldisheavy

[That Guy]

I will get back to this later but I just want to pose two questions at the moment:

 

How can one help others if they cannot help themself?

 

How can one give their excess to others if they, themself, are lacking?

 

Happy Trails!

 

Well I've seen dentists with bad teeth and doctors who don't seem to take care of their health. People who push others on a different path from their own because they want the person to be better than what they are.

 

I say its possible

[William Douglas Horden]

[Marblehead]

Well I've seen dentists with bad teeth and doctors who don't seem to take care of their health. People who push others on a different path from their own because they want the person to be better than what they are.

 

I say its possible

 

Possible but the exception, wouldn't you say? I would. The same thing is said about an auto mechanic. They spend their working hours fixing other peopes' vehicle and never have time for their own.

 

Happy Trails!

[Ryan T.]

 

"Why do you want to realize the Tao? What is your motivation for wanting to realize the Tao? Is it because you want to become wise? Or is it because you want to help others to realize the Tao? It may be possible for you to realize the Tao, but trying to realizing the Tao for selfish reasons or impure motivations is not the proper path. If you seek to realize the Tao for the sake and betterment of all sentient beings, then you generate virtue and your path is pure. Your motivation is the key. When your motivation (in all things) is completely selfless, and you have completely obliterated your self-centeredness, then you attain enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a phrase we should throw about carelessly. This is something that is different than realizing the Tao."

 

What she really said:

 

Taoism is bullshit, Buddhism is the true way!

 

At least that's my read on it.

[Stigweard]

So I ask in all seriousness, what about the role of motivation in the seeking of the Tao? After meditating and thinking about the Lama's answer to my question, I am coming to believe that one's motivation might be important.

Why does a river flow into the ocean? Why does night follow day? Why do plants reach toward the light of the sun?

 

[Tree04]

Hey Bro!

Whew! Now I see what you mean about border wars! Honestly, what a bunch a BS!!

 

You know, people on this forum can sit here and make fun of the Lama Shenpen Drolma all they want, but the truth is half of them don't lift a finger for their own elderly neighbor who is trying to take the trash out. And so they can spew their technical jargon until the cows come home but that doesn't change one thing: if they are wiser than we are, why are they still here?

 

You know brother, if you feel like something is a good idea, go with your gut. Forget Buddhism, vs. Taoism. If we fell back into the us vs. them mentality, we are no better than any other religions out there, or mom and dad and their views of Catholism! When you shut the mind, you stop learning, you start scrutinizing and you think you're better than everyone else, and then you become bitter, which, from my humble observation, is furthest from learning the Tao that you can be. When you recognize wisdom, whether they be Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Moslem you can still tell when they are close to enlightenment. Look at Mother Teresa, a woman, who had her doubts about her Catholic views, but never faultered on doing what is right, despite that. Who would dare condemn her? Who dare call her an evil, unwise person?

 

Getting back to the honest question you ask, about one's motivations. I think Horton gave the best answer, and one that I hadn't even considered before:

 

trying to act virtuously before enlightenment is considered to be governed by conditioning and mental habits, whereas our actions after enlightenment are natural, spontaneous, and fully in accord with the Tao governing everything form within.

 

Upon contemplation, I'm not really sure which catergory I fall into. I have been combative with mom and dad about Catholism since I was 9, I knew it never fit with me, but I always felt compassionate, since as long as I can remember. Was it conditioned or something I was born with? I don't know?! My gut tells me the latter, but then sometimes in extreme cases I fall back on the conditioned, mental habits I've learned through meditation. I mean, the best answer I have is that is just makes sense to me to be nice and compassionate, there is no other way; no other way makes sense to me! I joke with my friends that always compliment me on how nice I am and I just say, "I was born this way." Which is the truth as I know it. But then I think about the goal of enlightenment (sorry, the Tao) and I wonder if I have actually gained much in this lifetime, because I feel so predispositioned to being nice. If you start off with something (at birth) , and you end up (at death) still empathetic, have you gained anything? That's my struggle right now. I don't know. Perhaps I have solidied my mentality, which is good, I guess, but am I any closer to the house builder not building me a house? I do not know.

 

Just my humble thoughts.

Tree04

[Tree04]

In regards to a balanced approach I have a few words for you:

 

You are ready.

 

 

Tree04

[Gerard]

Tao, enlightenment, moksha, whatever you want to call it, are different words for the same thing.

 

Experience it first instead of asking others.

 

Keep practicing because this is not an easy path and let alone attaining the final goal.

 

Mind, mind, mind! And the eternal Samsara:

 

 

We are all trapped in. Getting out is not easy as discussed by Gavesako.

 

 

 

Edited: added some videos.

Edited September 30, 2009 by durkhrod chogori

[Marblehead]

Why does a river flow into the ocean? Why does night follow day? Why do plants reach toward the light of the sun?

 

 

And why does a bear poop in the woods?

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Hi Tree,

 

Your post above (#15) is very nice.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

First of all, this lama is a fake one, no doubt about it, based on her approach. Real Buddhists understand that the truth is beyond the 4 extremes and act like it. They don't say stupid shit like "OBLITERATE YOURSELF MORON!!!" That's not Buddhism at all.

 

Your so subjective. Your a fake yogi. You have no insight, just passionate self centeredness which you mistake for some sort of wisdom? Your so full of yourself and the shit that you project into the world that comes back to you like a mirror that most of the things you say aren't worth the memory these posts are saved on. The Lama said to obliterate your self-centeredness, not yourself. Meaning, get over yourself Moron.

 

On the flip-side your understanding of Taoism and especially of Chuang Tzu is just miserable, and thus you find yourself very affected by this woman.

 

Oh grand master knower of every persons inner workings!!

 

 

Kill the Buddha.

 

Stupid people like you spout these foolish remarks made famous by ignorant new agers who just don't know better because they've gotten everything in a watered down form. Statements like this come off as violent and extreme without any wisdom behind them and are spoken by fools such as you to make them seem cool and down to earth, but really it's more times than not, the worst thing someone can say on an open forum when it comes to the Buddhas sacred teaching. The statement, "Kill the Buddha" is meant as a way to remove a deep practitioners ignorance and attachment to their already deeply expansive concept and experience of the Buddha which happens only when you have actually taken refuge in the triple jewel for many, many years and meditated on the teachings of the Buddha for a very long time, then your Zen Master may say something like this to you. But, you haven't taken any refuge in anything other than your own ego and it's delusional version of spirituality and all your own egotistical judgments of others, that for you to say such a thing in the way you do without any real deep knowledge of Buddhas teachings is preposterous and just shows that your an imposture.

 

 

p.s. I'm not usually this mean. Goldisheavy has been running around giving his egotistical view on everyones state of mind and being for so long. His view on teachers is without an ounce of humility yet he considers himself a knower and a giver of truth, when he hasn't even taken refuge in a proper and humbling way.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

Your so subjective. Your a fake yogi.

 

Haven't you heard of honoring your teachers through your actions? Will your teachers be proud of you flaming like this?

[Marblehead]

 

Haven't you heard of honoring your teachers through your actions? Will your teachers be proud of you flaming like this?

 

Actually, what V. did is very wei wu wei and therefore very Taoist. I won't takes sides on this as There is no point in me getting into another arguement at this time.

 

And I agree, NAC, it may not have been very Buddhist but it was very Taoist so his soul is still protected.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Haven't you heard of honoring your teachers through your actions? Will your teachers be proud of you flaming like this?

 

Sometimes the only medicine is a slap in the face.

 

 

And I agree, NAC, it may not have been very Buddhist but it was very Taoist so his soul is still protected.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Thanks Marble... LOL!!

 

It's Buddhist too. When someone walks around trumping everyone, acting like a total jerk, being hostile to everyone and thinks it's wisdom, sometimes you need to kick that person to try and get the message through. His ego might be too hard though to take it in?

[Birch Tree]

My friends,

 

Thank you all for your replies--this has given me a lot to think about. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I love this forum--one can ask a serious metaphysical question and receive serious answers. Please humor me as I would like to address some of your responses in turn:

 

Tree04:

 

As always, you have a way of cutting right at the heart of the issue. I did not want this thread to become an "us vs. them" thread. Especially since if it did, you and I would technically be on opposite sides (me Taoist, you Buddhist)--but clearly we are on the same side. I certainly would not have found Taoism without "going with my gut" and I think you are right about this. I've no idea where the rabbit hole leads, but I have enjoyed my journey so far--from Catholicism growing up, to Atheism, to Agnosticism, to Wicca, and now to Taoism. I have been a spiritual wanderer, but as the saying goes: "not all who wander are lost." The truth is that I have always been attracted to good ideas--and the message that I heard from Lama Shenpen Drolma was a message of introspective love and extrospective compassion for others. That's what I have come to think the crux of her answer to my question was: seek spiritual fulfillment with pure motives and a selfless heart. That is a powerful message and one that I don't see as being at odds with Taoism. Her answer allowed me to think about my personal search for the Tao in a different way.

 

Also, you and I have had many personal conversations on these topics and I have the highest respect for your opinion. I appreciate your vote of confidence. As you know, I have come to understand the benefit of following good ideas, not dogma. Thanks again for your vote of confidence and for weighing in on this.

 

 

William Douglas Horden:

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. It is interesting that you recommended "Original Tao: Inward Training and the Foundations of Taoist Mysticism" as I had just checked this book out from the library. I plan to read it sometime next month.

 

The distinction that you brought up between the sudden schools and gradual schools of enlightenment is interesting. I just finished reading "The Secrets of the Golden Flower (Cleary translation)" which I found very thought-provoking. As I am sure you know, much of that ancient text is heavily influenced by Chan Buddhism, and I believe you are correct in stating that Chan Buddhism gave rise to the Complete Reality School. Honestly, I personally see the search for the Tao as a gradual path. You also make an excellent point about impermanence and the ungraspable "what". Seeking the ungraspable "what" can indeed carry you away to the non-dual unitary experience of the Tao. I suppose it doesn't really matter if the Tao is permanent or not. I've always thought of the realization of the Tao (as I defined it in my earlier posts) as equivalent to Buddhist enlightenment.

 

I thank you for such a well-considered post. It has given me much to think about.

 

 

durkhrod chogori:

 

Thanks for the link to the videos. They are very interesting. Like you (and like I told William Douglas Horden above), I've always equated the realization of the Tao with Buddhist enlightenment. I see from your post that you would agree with this assessment. Your simple statement on experiencing it for oneself digs right at the heart of the matter for me. As I told goldisheavy in a previous post--I am an honest student of life, and I am willing to walk the path that I talk about. I have largely eschewed seeking out a teacher to this point because I want to discover my own path. Sometimes I have gotten lost in my spiritual journey--no doubt about it--but wherever I have spiritually been I have always learned valuable lessons. I just wanted to tell you that I appreciated your simple yet immensely important statement urging me on in my practice. Thank you.

 

 

Stigweard:

 

Thank you for your questions in return. The answer I would give is that in all of those instances, that which is happening is natural. If I extrapolated this answer to my original question about motivation and the Tao, is it reasonable to say that those motivations which are natural are the ones that lead one to seek the Tao? I'd be interested to hear your reply to my answer.

 

 

goldisheavy:

 

Again, I thank you for your response. I have no doubt that you are quite learned in the texts of the Tao. I understand your point that the Tao is undefined. It was not my intention to misrepresent the words of Lama Shenpen Drolma--I hope you will attribute any error in her teaching to my poor memory and not to her. I am humbly trying to relay the crux of what she told me as best I remember. I am not learned in the text or traditions of Buddhism, so I was trying to use my limited Taoist understandings as a perceptual frame with which I could relate to her answer.

 

Also, I found your comments about selflessness intriguing. I personally did not know what the four extremes of Buddhism are. It seems to me that if one is to closely follow the avoidance of these four extremes, it is very difficult to talk about much of anything. Perhaps that is the point...the less said, the better and retire when the work is done? Still, I have to admit that the idea of motivation for seeking the Tao is something that I am still grappling with. If there is no distinction between myself and others, than seeking the Tao for selfish reasons will also benefit others--perhaps at some higher level of thought this makes sense, but I'm not sure that I've achieved such a non-dualistic mode of thinking yet. My honest introspection has led me to believe that I have been seeking the Tao for largely selfish reasons (my own spiritual fulfillment). But my interpretation of the Lama's message was that if I seek the Tao with a pure and selfless heart that is full of love, that would be best. It would generate virtue. There is a lot of appeal in this line of thinking to me as I find it hard to argue against such loving motivations. Maybe I need to see the duality between myself and others more clearly before I can realize the falsity of this duality? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

 

Vajrahridaya:

 

I have read many of your posts and even though I do not consider myself a Buddhist, I appreciate your point of view on many things. From my reading of some of your previous posts, you seem to have a thorough knowledge of Buddhist precepts and a good understanding of Buddhist texts. I would welcome your thoughts on my original question regarding the role of motivation in one's search for the Tao, as well as your thoughts about the similarity or difference between the search for the Tao and the journey toward Buddhist enlightenment.

 

 

Please accept my sincere thanks to all of you for your thoughts. It is honest and forthright discussions such as these that make this forum the great place that it is. I hope that to hear more of your thoughts soon.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya:

 

I have read many of your posts and even though I do not consider myself a Buddhist, I appreciate your point of view on many things. From my reading of some of your previous posts, you seem to have a thorough knowledge of Buddhist precepts and a good understanding of Buddhist texts. I would welcome your thoughts on my original question regarding the role of motivation in one's search for the Tao, as well as your thoughts about the similarity or difference between the search for the Tao and the journey toward Buddhist enlightenment.

Please accept my sincere thanks to all of you for your thoughts. It is honest and forthright discussions such as these that make this forum the great place that it is. I hope that to hear more of your thoughts soon.

 

Sincerely,

Birch Tree

 

Hi Birch,

 

You come across as a humble seeker of truth. I truly appreciate that. Sorry about flaming Goldisheavy on this thread. I just don't like the way he makes absolute judgments of peoples capacity and subjectively mis-represents the things people say as well as the teachings. Sometimes he is spot on though, just generally when he rarely is, it's in a rude kind of way. He's known to say things like... that was just stupid, or your stupid, and this is the truth because I say it is. Even though as far as I can tell, he's had no real training under the guidance of real lineage. He makes intellectual excuses that seem logical as to why not, kind of like Krishnamurti, who I'm not a big fan of as I find his view to be extreme, though not all together wrong, just not ultimately benefiting anyone as it completely denies process and the value of tradition.

 

Anywords... The thing is, in Buddhism enlightenment is defined by seeing dependent origination, which means mutual co-generation. That nothing stands on it's own, and that there is no essence to anything, no static source of anything, everything is connected to everything since beginningless time through different modes of manifestation. For example, you know you can break a chair down into elements that connect to other elements and work to support other aspects of the entire system we call cosmos and that really there is no real chair, just mutually dependent elements that are further mutually dependent upon other elements that happen to come together into what is used as a chair, but the chair has no real and tangible self. That's like us, except in a more complicated way because we are sentient beings.

 

So, motivation is very important as the final realization of Buddhahood is defined by there being no absolute self, and that all things are relative and impermanent. There is no unique essence to anything and there is also no essence to the cosmos because cosmos is just a name for an endless assortment of connected processes, so there really is no entity that is itself "cosmos." So, Taoism can be in alignment with this Buddhist tenet of no self anywhere to be found if one were to take the meaning of Tao to just mean constant process, the way of everything, but not a source of things and not an ontological essence that everything is merged with in a sense of "oneness", or there is only "one" and that is "the Tao". So... with that in mind, there are many, many similarities between Buddhism and Taoism, if one were not to take up the idea that the Tao is a source of things, because to Buddhism, there is no source to anything, not even in the sense that some people say "the Tao is not the source of anything because all things are one with the Tao so how can something be the source of itself?" This type of logic doesn't work with Buddhism as this is a Monist premise to non-dualism, and Buddhism is a non-substantial non-dualism where all things are equally empty of inherent existence, including consciousness, so all things are equally relative, thus non-dual, not that all things are a single mysterious ineffable essence, or even one energy.

 

Ok, so with all that under the belt of your understanding. For a Buddhist, in the Mahayana which is the form that came to China one wishes to attain liberation for the sake of all beings, so that one builds virtue and right conduct as well as right understanding. One contextualizes ones desire so that it becomes a wholesome desire and not a selfish desire, it's a desire that both benefits yourself and all other beings through one's intentionality. It also expands ones consciousness to altruism and compassion. Which are both natural arisings in one's consciousness when one consciously includes everyone in one's way of thinking. You feel a sense of softness and connection with people so you act in reference to this feeling instead of a hard feeling, denying the world thinking... "I'm going to be better than you all and attain my liberation". This type of attitude is a popular one at first, that doesn't necessarily come out that obviously expressed, but that feeling lurks in a person in some form or another in the beginning of their spiritual journey... generally speaking. I remember feeling, "You all suck! So, I'm going to go be a Buddha." "You all dress so cool because your sucked into the popular culture schematic and think it's the bomb, so I'm going to go put on robes and be better than you all because I renounce all that BS." Do you know what I mean? Can you see how this type of subtle ego grasping has taken shape inside yourself in whatever personal way? I know it did for me when I first started doing spiritual work. I think it might even serve a purpose as long as one's unconscious of it, it can motivate you to at least do something different from popular consensus. But, it's not really a compassionate intention and feeling, so in the long term it will cripple spiritual learning. So, Buddhists make it a point to consciously think in a universal way, so that one already starts the self de-construction process from the outset. Which not only means de-constructing oneself, but also everyone else, in a non-judgmental manner. Just seeing clearly that people do what they do for the sake of happiness and to bring cessation to suffering in whatever way they know how through their worldly pleasures. One has compassion through understanding that everyone is really motivated by the desire for peace and happiness, but people don't know how to go about it and many don't even realize that they are motivated in their chaotic ways for the sake of this inner experience. But, you want to be an example setter and show the true path to peace and happiness is the inner path of spiritual contemplation and meditation, not so that you can be better than everyone and show them... "HA told you so!"... "See... you were wrong all along... I've got peace and you don't because I'm spiritual... nah, nah!!". That type of attitude would really be quite paradoxical to the intention of spiritual cultivation... right?

 

So yes, motivation is important, but include yourself... you are a part of everyone and everyone is a part of you as well. That's really all Buddhism is saying, do good and be good not only for you, but for everyone, because you and everyone are connected anyway. I think Taoism says this too!

Edited September 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]