Is a buddha basically god?

[Marblehead]

 

PS the funniest thing here is that you called my much beloved life-long practice "childish and silly stuff" and I didn't even respond to that remark LOL

 

Why you keep putting these PSes and PSSes on me? Do you run out of breath and have to take a few minutes break to get your breath back?

 

HEHEHE. Yes, I did do that in the heat of the arguement. I sincerely apologize for that. And YES!, you were a good boy for not calling me on it.

 

I am so glad that Stig and I had our misunderstanding early in my life here on this forum.

 

This has actually almost been fun because I got to feel a few of my emotions during this discussion.

 

Maybe we can do it again some day. But just you and me - nobody else's name to be mentioned.

 

You have a good day too and stay healthy.

 

Happy Trails!

[Stigweard]

[padge]

Buddha was basically a vehicle of God because his ego "small self" died and he became identified as the infinite Self as All That Is. He transcended the ego and realized his true nature as Divinity itself, the same nature present within all of us.

[JustARandomPanda]

 

Is it? Who ever said Taoists are meek sheep push overs? They don't invent martial arts for nothing silly! Point made, CASE CLOSED

 

You have missed the point of your TTC reference. It says if we don't compete - meaning START a competition then no one can compete against us. It does not say that if someone competes on us - physically or mentally by defaming our religion we won't respond - either with MA or with critical thinking. Maybe if it's about something secondary like DO then we won't bother. But when it comes to the critical core of our essence well then you can expect us to counter. We have a right, a duty, and a reason to do so. So, no you two are wrong about what Taoism means.

I suspect a Taoist Sage is Enlightened and therefore able to see when his/her Ego response is creating a tempest in a teacup.

 

Serene said she doesn't own TTC and you say you only read TTC and Chuang Tzu. Perhaps you need to expand your knowledge of what Taoism is - as you have only seen the tip of the iceberg. Then you will learn just how central and critical it is in Taoism. A Taoist master once said "The Tao does not go beyond the twin cultivation of ^%&% and )*&(**&&" If you don't know at least what these are then you are really just a rank beginner.

 

I admit I am a total Noob when it comes to Taoism. I consider Marble and Stigweard our resident Taoist Experts. Perhaps Stig can enlighten us as to how a Taoist sage (or at least Taoist Accolyte) would respond to someone telling you on TaoBums, 'You are a bad person".

 

Stig...care to enlighten us all?

[Sunya]

Buddha was basically a vehicle of God because his ego "small self" died and he became identified as the infinite Self as All That Is. He transcended the ego and realized his true nature as Divinity itself, the same nature present within all of us.

 

No. please read my posts above. there is no such thing as Infinite Self as All That Is [in Buddhism]

or, better yet. go check out the 20 page thread of Advaita vs Buddhism which discusses the problems of attaching "Self" to "All That Is" and why Buddhism sees this as a mistake and does not lead to liberated view

[JustARandomPanda]

 

No. please read my posts above. there is no such thing as Infinite Self as All That Is [in Buddhism]

or, better yet. go check out the 20 page thread of Advaita vs Buddhism which discusses the problems of attaching "Self" to "All That Is" and why Buddhism sees this as a mistake and does not lead to liberated view

 

It's even easier (and only 2 pages v. 20) to understand by simply reading the thread - Ego Inflation (aka Secret Narcissism). It explains the mechanics of why the Buddha "saw through" Divine Will and thus rejected it as a wrong view.

[Tao99]

Lao Tzu was pretty clear about what was important to him as far as de or virtues of the Tao. Pretty simple and normal really. Lin Yutang says the chapter contains Laozi's "most beautiful teachings." One translation of this chapter 67 by Waley is

 

Here are my three treasures. Guard and keep them! The first is pity; the second, frugality; the third, refusal to be 'foremost of all things under heaven'.

For only he that pities is truly able to be brave;

Only he that is frugal is able to be profuse.

Only he that refuses to be foremost of all things

Is truly able to become chief of all Ministers.

 

Another:

 

I have three treasures. Guard and keep them:

The first is deep love,

The second is frugality,

And the third is not to dare to be ahead of the world.

Because of deep love, one is courageous.

Because of frugality, one is generous.

Because of not daring to be ahead of the world, one becomes the leader of the world.

 

Lao-tzu TTC chapter 67

 

According to Wikipedia "A consensus translation of the Three Treasures could be: compassion or love, frugality or simplicity, and humility or modesty."

Edited October 6, 2009 by Tao99

[Old Man Contradiction]

I got a bit of reading to do...

[Stigweard]

I suspect a Taoist Sage is Enlightened and therefore able to see when his/her Ego response is creating a tempest in a teacup.

I admit I am a total Noob when it comes to Taoism. I consider Marble and Stigweard our resident Taoist Experts. Perhaps Stig can enlighten us as to how a Taoist sage (or at least Taoist Accolyte) would respond to someone telling you on TaoBums, 'You are a bad person".

 

Stig...care to enlighten us all?

 

Enlighten you ???

 

My goodness I am having enough time of it just trying to enlighten myself!

 

I have started a new thread here: The Relationship Between Religious and Philosophical Taoism

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Thus impermanence is the monism (i.e. eternal oneness) of Buddhism.

 

Your not making the shift. It's a non-substantial universal truth, it's not a mysterious non-conceptual ground. It's merely emptiness and is not established. Tao is established. It's different. The subtle difference between the two way's of view is escaping you because you haven't studied Buddhism and your trying to read Taoism into my explanations. So, it's pointless to debate this with you.

 

 

Interesting that subtle can be synonymous with ambiguous;

 

No... subtle means deeply nuanced in Buddhism, not ambiguous as in... "what's the real meaning?"

[Stigweard]

Your not making the shift. It's a non-substantial universal truth, it's not a mysterious non-conceptual ground. It's merely emptiness and is not established. Tao is established. It's different. The subtle difference between the two way's of view is escaping you because you haven't studied Buddhism and your trying to read Taoism into my explanations. So, it's pointless to debate this with you.

No... subtle means deeply nuanced in Buddhism, not ambiguous as in... "what's the real meaning?"

My friend it is not me who needs to make the shift. You are the one who has come to this forum to "argue the superiority of Buddhism." If you demand to be understood then you must demonstrate that you understand first. Just like we agreed to do by agreeing with: Guidelines for Taoist-Buddhist Dialog.

 

You think you know Tao, but to even make comments like "Tao is established" shows without question that you do not. It is you my friend who are hypocritically trying to read Buddhism into Taoism.

 

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]

My friend it is not me who needs to make the shift. You are the one who has come to this forum to "argue the superiority of Buddhism." If you demand to be understood then you must demonstrate that you understand first. Just like we agreed to do by agreeing with: Guidelines for Taoist-Buddhist Dialog.

 

You think you know Tao, but to even make comments like "Tao is established" shows without question that you do not. It is you my friend who are hypocritically trying to read Buddhism into Taoism.

 

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.

 

Then you stop making assertions that Taoism and Buddhism teach the same thing. If they are, prove that they are, because thus far, all you've established is that you don't understand the meaning of dependent origination, much less the words that I write.

 

So... how is the Tao not established? Then, it is dependently originated and does not inherently exist. Then, the Tao does not give birth to anything, is not the oneness of things and is not the secret, non-conceptual essence of things.

 

Your logic is flawed.

[Stigweard]

Then you stop making assertions that Taoism and Buddhism teach the same thing. If they are, prove that they are, because thus far, all you've established is that you don't understand the meaning of dependent origination, much less the words that I write.

 

So... how is the Tao not established? Then, it is dependently originated and does not inherently exist. Then, the Tao does not give birth to anything, is not the oneness of things and is not the secret, non-conceptual essence of things.

 

Your logic is flawed.

Dude I have never and will never make assertions that they teach the same thing, if this is the impression you have then it is you who have not understood my words. I am saying they are equal in importance. Using your own logic, if all things have the common core of impermanence through dependent origination then ultimately both Buddhism and Taoism are inherently empty and are thus equal within that emptiness.

 

And I am happy, very happy in fact, to say that Tao is dependently originated because existence (You) and non-existence (Wu) are both aspects of Tao. This will obviously not make sense or logic to your Buddhist way of thinking but it is how Taoists regard Tao. But like you said they are different.

 

You believe that dependent origination and impermanence are the "core" of all things, I accept and respect that. As Taoist we have a different take on that "core" and call it Tao. I am not and will not argue for Taoist superiority because superiority thinking is not the way of Tao. I have been arguing for equality and will continue to do so as long as you maintain your campaign of superiority here.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dude I have never and will never make assertions that they teach the same thing, if this is the impression you have then it is you who have not understood my words. I am saying they are equal in importance. Using your own logic, if all things have the common core of impermanence through dependent origination then ultimately both Buddhism and Taoism are inherently empty and are thus equal within that emptiness.

 

Yes ok, but emptiness as well is not established. As Nagarjuna say's, emptiness is also empty.

 

And I am happy, very happy in fact, to say that Tao is dependently originated because existence (You) and non-existence (Wu) are both aspects of Tao. This will obviously not make sense or logic to your Buddhist way of thinking but it is how Taoists regard Tao. But like you said they are different.

 

Yes, but that's saying that Tao is merely a process of things since beginningless time and does not give birth to anything, other than a reflection of realizing impermanence. I am willing to understand what you mean by this.

 

You believe that dependent origination and impermanence are the "core" of all things, I accept and respect that. As Taoist we have a different take on that "core" and call it Tao. I am not and will not argue for Taoist superiority because superiority thinking is not the way of Tao. I have been arguing for equality and will continue to do so as long as you maintain your campaign of superiority here.

 

Since impermanence is the core of all things, things are not established, thus neither is impermanence established. Thus neither is a core to all things established.

 

I don't yet see that Taoism leads to an equal vision with Buddhism. Like I've said before though... I'm open to being wrong, if this can be placed into realization for me.

 

Thank you for your patience, as it's finally making a bit of sense to me now.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Yes ok, but emptiness as well is not established. As Nagarjuna say's, emptiness is also empty.

Yes, but that's saying that Tao is merely a process of things since beginningless time and does not give birth to anything, other than a reflection of realizing impermanence. I am willing to understand what you mean by this.

Since impermanence is the core of all things, things are not established, thus neither is impermanence established. Thus neither is a core to all things established.

 

I don't yet see that Taoism leads to an equal vision with Buddhism. Like I've said before though... I'm open to being wrong, if this can be placed into realization for me.

 

Thank you for your patience, as it's finally making a bit of sense to me now.

I really want to follow this through Vajrahridaya as I detect a foundation of mutuality here, but I have to go to work now. I will pick it up in the morning

 

Nighty nights

[Marblehead]

No. please read my posts above. there is no such thing as Infinite Self as All That Is [in Buddhism]

or, better yet. go check out the 20 page thread of Advaita vs Buddhism which discusses the problems of attaching "Self" to "All That Is" and why Buddhism sees this as a mistake and does not lead to liberated view

 

Son of a gun! I have to agree with Mikaelz! What do you think about that?

 

Actually, that is my understanding of that aspect of Taoist Philosophy so it was easy for me to agree. Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Lao Tzu was pretty clear about what was important to him as far as de or virtues of the Tao. Pretty simple and normal really. Lin Yutang says the chapter contains Laozi's "most beautiful teachings."

 

And, of course, we have Lin Yutang's translation:

 

67. The Three Treasures

All the world says: my teaching (Tao) greatly resembles folly.

Because it is great; therefore it resembles folly.

If it did not resemble folly,

It would have long ago become petty indeed!

 

I have Three Treasures;

Guard them and keep them safe:

the first is Love.

The second is, Never too much.

The third is, Never be the first in the world.

Through Love, one has no fear;

Through not doing too much, one has amplitude

(of reserve power);

Through not presuming to be the first in the world,

One can develop one's talent and let it mature.

 

If one forsakes love and fearlessness,

forsakes restraint and reserve power,

forsakes following behind and rushes in front,

He is doomed!

 

For love is victorious in attack,

And invulnerable in defense.

Heaven arms with love

Those it would not see destroyed.

 

 

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

This sounds exactly like what Buddhism teaches!

 

Pity = Compassion

Frugal = able to be non-attached / desirous (i.e. not covetous or greedy)

Refusal of being foremost in heaven = Ego not getting in the way of living naturally and harmoniously

 

Just please be careful with the word "pity". The word contains many conotations, many of which do not apply to Taoist teachings.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

For some reason I have been inspired to say this again here:

 

"Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be; they (things and non-things) merely take different form over time."

 

Happy Trails!

[Tao99]

This sounds exactly like what Buddhism teaches!

 

Pity = Compassion

Frugal = able to be non-attached / desirous (i.e. not covetous or greedy)

Refusal of being foremost in heaven = Ego not getting in the way of living naturally and harmoniously

 

yea. your welcome.

 

I guess because I'm not on your kiss list, you don't consider what I taught you here as valuable as your current stated favs MH and Mal LOL.

 

I see Stig is no longer on your 'hero list'; could it be because of his response to you above lol

 

You should really read the book before you project onto others what you "guess" they are or are not being/doing. That's just being fair.

 

have a good day and take care

Edited October 5, 2009 by Tao99

[Birch]

"Tao is established. It's different"

 

I had just figured Tao as the "..." that encompasses and pervades and is everything - including us lot - sort of the same deal as "if you hadn't noticed already, you are that - which includes the "not that". It's moving all the time yet relative to ourselves and we can sometimes feel its stillness, vastness and voidness and we are in awe if we are fortunate - despair if not . I didn't see any difference between that and DO.

 

At worst, you are "just a part of it;-)" But it is really you so watch out;-) Otherwise find me the being who exists outside of it all. Therein lies the god problem - that we have created to prove to ourselves that we ourselves are outside beings? Because we aspire to becoming gods?

 

Anyway I agree that everyone is one with Tao or DO or whatever you care to call it because they already are part of it whether they'd like to be or not. Kind of like the enlightenment (problem).

 

Anyhoo, what I was considering even more fun to consider was that the 10,000 things are the exactly same phenomena as - well - the phenomena that Buddhists sometimes talk about, but they classify them differently. They can't be different things until they are considered as phenomena. Anyone care to consider (again) how it comes about that we seem ourselves to be phenomena considering phenomena ?

 

I like that Taoist approaches have dualism all built in (Yin and Yang) as well as other systemic approaches (5E) - Certainly it's easier for this pea-brain to contemplate;-)

 

Yes I feel quite happy and clever about this post but please to attack me on content and not cocky attitude;-)

[mat black]

No one knows and understands all the varying aspects of Nature. The best we can do is work with what we understand.

 

And that means observation, understanding the processes as well as we can based upon those observations, and try to apply those processes in our daily activities.

 

To go beyond the observable is only making thing up. Pretending. Creating delusions. Similar to taking LSD. Or becoming an alcoholic. All that is called escapism.

Happy Trails!

If we stop at our current level of understanding and use that as a basis for explanation of the fundamental truths of the universe then we will never become wiser.

 

If we only 'work with what we understand' then we are likely to reject that which comes from a higher level of understanding and hence remain at the level that we are.

 

To go beyond the level of the observable may seems as though it is 'making things up', but it only apears that way to the one who is not yet not able to observe deeper and higher state, causes, truths etc.

 

The purpose of meditation is to increase our capacity for understanding. Until we have increased that that capacity to the point of obtaining omniscience, it is best not to refute that which we have not yet realised.

 

And as to whether anyone can find out if there are senses beyond our default five - well the nice thing is that we all can go meditate and see for ourselves if this is so. We don't HAVE to take anyone else's word for that unless we just want to. We can also go test it for ourselves if we're willing to put the time and effort into it.

Yes! The sages having realised the fruition of the way combined with their great compassion have taught and directed us on the path. It is up to us to individually apply sincerity and effort in order to awaken ourselves.

Best to you in your cultivation SB.

 

To the original question: a god is a being within the six paths of cyclical existence (samsara) and hence has a lifespan (albeit a very long one)

Buddha is one who has gone beyond all birth and death and realised anuttara-samyak-sambodhi .

http://wanderling.tripod.com/anuttara.html

http://www.cttbusa.org/shakyamuni_buddha/shakyamuni.asp

 

Here is a sage explaning the difference between Buddhas and gods.

Edited October 6, 2009 by mat black