What type of Daoist are you? -- Part 1

[dragonfire]

The Buddha wouldn't agree, but... that's another argument. I'm definitely a Buddhist under the guidance of the triple gem.

 

You've only labeled the triple gem buddhism. He had to call it something.

 

Before the buddha, when there was no buddhism, what would you have called it then? The guidance of the

triple gem could have been called something else.

 

Before christ, when there was no label of christ consciousness, what then?

 

Each time period has its new avatars and they all call it something else.

 

Someday, buddhism will disappear, taoism will disappear, christ consciousness will disappear,

krishna teaching will disappear, and something else will take its place.

[Vajrahridaya]

You've only labeled the triple gem buddhism. He had to call it something.

 

Before the buddha, when there was no buddhism, what would you have called it then? The guidance of the

triple gem could have been called something else.

 

That's the thing, he taught that the only enlightened ones before him during this age were solitary enlightened beings of a certain type of quality not quite as high as a Sammasambhuddha, or even Buddhas after the Shakyamuni who follow his teachings, known as enlightened through listening. The solitary enlightened ones did not know how to preach the dharma in a way that others could truly understand for many thousands of years due to the death of the previous dharma long prier to his coming.

 

Before christ, when there was no label of christ consciousness, what then?

 

 

Christ consciousness is a completely new age phenomena emergence between Hinduism and mystic Christianity in the West. I mean... come on. Sure there were mystic Christians who attained some of the higher formless Samadhi's, but they did not realize dependent origination/emptiness. They still just realized the emptiness of their ego only and still think that the universe is independently originated by a supreme being made of divine light.

 

Each time period has its new avatars and they all call it something else.

 

They really don't teach the same thing though. Really, the cosmos is much more complicated than the new age "oneness" group you are subscribing to believes. Sorry to disappoint you, but you should study each teaching within context and not just little bits here and there merged together in a messy way thinking they all came to the same conclusion when they didn't.

 

The Buddha taught that your understanding leads to the perfection of the 4 immeasurables (Bhramaviharas), but not insight into the nature of things within the spectrum of infinite regress.

 

Someday, buddhism will disappear, taoism will disappear, christ consciousness will disappear,

krishna teaching will disappear, and something else will take its place.

 

Then the Maitreya Buddha will come eventually when the conditions are ripe to preach the dharma of dependent origination/emptiness once again. Whose teachings are not the same as Christ or Krishna who's teaching lead to high level, long lived god realms which the Buddha did teach about. Please, if you are truly interested in what Buddha taught, read his teachings within context with an open mind.

 

I used to believe as you did with all the meditative experience and interpretations of them to back it up with this universalism theory of today's new age pu pu platter spirituality mostly based on the proliferation of Hindu dogma throughout the West many years ago. Finding out I was wrong was a huge blow to my ego which took years to recover from.

 

I wish you well.

 

P.S. When you understand the Buddhas teaching on it's own terms, you will see that it is deeply specific and not messy at all. We have very little to go on with all the other sages and saints, but what the Buddha taught was uniquely specific, categorizing as well as deeply abstract at the same time to a degree unheard of. He preached vehemently and debated with other religious leaders non-violently for 40 years in an attempt to bring them to the "right view." He criticized the Vedas and the Upanishads as well as Jainism.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

SORRY, I FEEL BAD FOR BRINGING THIS ARGUMENT IN HERE!! I should have just left Dragonfire with her view...

[King Kabalabhati]

SORRY, I FEEL BAD FOR BRINGING THIS ARGUMENT IN HERE!! I should have just left Dragonfire with her view...

 

No man! Don't stop until you've corrected everyone!

[King Kabalabhati]

..and thanks for giving me a new definition of my faith and philosophy!

 

Moderators please add one more cathegory to choose from: " New age pu pu platter Taoist."

[Vajrahridaya]

No man! Don't stop until you've corrected everyone!

 

LOL! Paleeeease! Not possible... now I'm feeling very little. HAHA!

[Marblehead]

 

Lao Tzu only named it that because he didn't know what to call it.

 

 

He also used the non-descriptive word "Great".

[Marblehead]

Well, I am happy to hear that Vaj has converted to Taoism.

 

But he has a lot of useless knowledge he must now shed himself of.

 

It will be a long, painful journey but if you hang strong you can handle it Vaj.

 

Best wishes.

[Vajrahridaya]

[Marblehead]

 

I won't say anything more. I have said what needed be said.

[manitou]

So the real question is, what is the taoist's job description? What does a taoist actually do? not "think" or "believe" or "prove" or "disprove" but "do." Not "go" or "not go" with the flow or against it (many a taoist goes against the flow, mind you... this is the level of expertise above plumber, this is rocket science of taoism and rocket scientists go against the flow). But -- what does a taoist do that maikes him or her a taoist?

 

 

 

What does a daoist actually do? I would say in the true sense of the word, what constitutes a daoist is their learned ability to Do Nothing, wu-wei. The kind of do-nothing that is virtually impossible to teach to someone until and unless the internal work has been done in the student. the kind of wu-wei that can remain calm in the midst of a storm and KNOW in his heart that everything is right on schedule. The kind of wu-wei that feels no fear because it Understands that things are manifesting as the life force seems to want it to manifest. Or the kind of wu-wei that knows that Doing Nothing, when engaged, is the most expedient way to affect change in an unwanted situation; only the light is being bent from a distance far removed from the problem and very subtle, so that people cannot see it unless they have the Eyes to See It. In order to have the eyes to see it, we must be capable of reaching that place of wu-wei where the perspective can be realized. Wu-wei cannot be realized until we become a clear channel for spirit (life force) to either take the highest action or Do Nothing on what's already being done. This is impossible to put into words. Maybe I should cut my losses here....

[manitou]

 

 

 

Christ consciousness is a completely new age phenomena emergence between Hinduism and mystic Christianity in the West. I mean... come on. Sure there were mystic Christians who attained some of the higher formless Samadhi's, but they did not realize dependent origination/emptiness. They still just realized the emptiness of their ego only and still think that the universe is independently originated by a supreme being made of divine light.

 

 

 

 

A bit off topic, but have you ever read anything about the Nazarene being an Essene? I think his folks were Essenses, rather than Philistine or Saducee. The Essenes were the shamanic clan of the Jews. I'm not sure they would have been satisfied seeing their God as a divine light. It was more wrapped up in nature. My personal belief is that the Nazarene, if indeed there is any truth to his life or any of his acts, was a shaman. He learned to manipulate energy big time. Maybe he was one who helped break the glass ceiling for the rest of us.

[Samuel]

Do we have to be one or the other? Why try and fit an irregular peg in a square, round or triangular hole? We all have a common interest in Tao, or similar, why not leave it at that?

[Apech]

Do we have to be one or the other? Why try and fit an irregular peg in a square, round or triangular hole? We all have a common interest in Tao, or similar, why not leave it at that?

 

Exactly - just the way the polls work really.

[Vajrahridaya]

A bit off topic, but have you ever read anything about the Nazarene being an Essene? I think his folks were Essenses, rather than Philistine or Saducee. The Essenes were the shamanic clan of the Jews. I'm not sure they would have been satisfied seeing their God as a divine light. It was more wrapped up in nature. My personal belief is that the Nazarene, if indeed there is any truth to his life or any of his acts, was a shaman. He learned to manipulate energy big time. Maybe he was one who helped break the glass ceiling for the rest of us.

 

Yup, read all that stuff, Nag Hammadi Library too. It's all very nice.

 

Some theorize that Jesus even went to North India and learned his ability to take on others karmas directly as there already existed specific practices for that.

 

Who knows!? It's all shrouded in mystery and hearsay, and I like clarity.

 

Buddhayo!

 

p.s. When I was a little kid, I used to carry a picture of Jesus around and say, "I love him." and I used to pray to him before bed and while sitting on the toilet to help everyone in my life get what they wanted and to be happy and I wasn't even Christian. My mother was a devout Hindu tantrica.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[dragonfire]

 

P.S. When you understand the Buddhas teaching on it's own terms, you will see that it is deeply specific and not messy at all. We have very little to go on with all the other sages and saints, but what the Buddha taught was uniquely specific, categorizing as well as deeply abstract at the same time to a degree unheard of. He preached vehemently and debated with other religious leaders non-violently for 40 years in an attempt to bring them to the "right view." He criticized the Vedas and the Upanishads as well as Jainism.

 

I believe the buddhas teaching has validity. The problem is not his original teaching, its the

number of sects that are teaching inaccurate information and customizing it, thus, the

foreseeing that buddhism will also disappear. There are too many sects and too many

vehicles. These days, you even find buddhist sects arguing with each other.

 

When another buddha comes around after the decline of buddhism, he may not call it the

dharma. Why because the language may be different? It may be called in some different

because the dominant language will be different or the buddhas spoken language is no

longer sanskrit. Buddhism, Dharma, Sangha, are all labels we have assigned to this

time. Even tho the labels will change, the hidden message remains the same. This

is why the chinese have Dharma in chinese, the tibetans have it in tibetan.

 

From what I heard, it is not the achieved master who can not teach, but it is because

he chooses not to, or not part of his mission. Some who incarnate here have the

mission to teach others. I wouldn't say they do not have the capacity to teach.

When you have achieved transformational bodies and cultivated to a point where even

the body no longer remains, if that is not a buddha or higher, I'll shit my

pants. According to the buddha sutras, many do not even transform their bodies

to light, but just leave. What about those that do transform their bodies to

light. This means they are even higher than the buddha you speak of.

In china, there are some who have obtained these levels already.

 

Its not the word that counts. Its the message or meaning behind the word. Not

only that, but again, by creating a word for it, you have already limited the

thing that cannot really be defined at all, which is absolute.

 

You can tell someone to "Fuck off", but if you say it in a good way or

joking way, its still good dharma. haha!

[xenolith]

Am a serve others Daoist.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

When another buddha comes around after the decline of buddhism, he may not call it the

dharma. Why because the language may be different? It may be called in some different

 

 

None of that really matters. It doesn't matter what the language is, as long as dependent origination/emptiness is taught, than it's the dharma in any name whatsoever. The thing is, is that Buddhism is the only path on this planet that teaches this to a nuance, and Taoism comes quite close it seems at least as interpreted by some people who I've met here.

 

All other traditions teach independent origination/consciousness. This leads to a different destination and not Buddhahood.

 

When you understand what dependent origination/emptiness means on an experiential level, you will see that it doesn't mean the same thing as other traditions teach, and you will know directly. Now, Jesus might have known this, but his teachings are for the most part lost... we don't really know. Some Taoist wizards might have taught this... but I have no idea. But, the Christian mystics do not teach this, neither do the Islamic mystics and neither do the Hindu mystics. This is anthropologically and textually factual.

[Vajrahridaya]

which is absolute.

 

 

There is no self standing absolute in Buddhism. Actually, there is no absolute truth in Buddhism and that's the absolute truth of Buddhism. This is an entirely different view from what you might be accustomed to and what most people are accustomed to when they come from a New Age background, or Theistic background.

[Marblehead]

I'm glad we are still discussing Taoism in this Taoism thread.

 

I'm also glad that there are Buddhist threads on this forum where Buddhist concepts can be freely discussed.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm glad we are still discussing Taoism in this Taoism thread.

 

I'm also glad that there are Buddhist threads on this forum where Buddhist concepts can be freely discussed.

 

Yea... I know, but the wheel got thrown in here by some all is "one" ists. As if one was not as relative as many, or as if one was more absolute than many or something... so many don't realize how much of a dogma this is!

[Marblehead]

Yea... I know, but the wheel got thrown in here by some all is "one" ists. As if one was not as relative as many, or as if one was more absolute than many or something... so many don't realize how much of a dogma this is!

 

 

Are you sure you want to talk about dogma?!? Hehehe.

 

Yes, I have grown to understand how easily you are tempted to get involved and take part in any and all discussions.

 

But I will agree that All is One from the point of view of the universe but from the point of view of man is another completely different story. We seem to have the need to point to all the differences.

 

So, if you were a Taoist, which, of course, we all understand that you are not, what type of Taoist would you classify yourself as?

 

Or, to make it easier, replace the word Taoist with your preferred word, just in your mind, mind you, and tell us what type of "....ist" you feel you are.

 

But let's try to keep it within Taoist context. Do you think you can handle that?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Of the selections, i feel like i might be a mix of the first and last selection, but.. find the ritualistic and codified versions to inspire disonance in my understandings.. overall, though, i am a curious being that tends to avoid labels.. i simply find that Taoism, in its interesting variations, most closely appeoximates my understandings and experiences of Life..

 

Be well..

[Apech]

I'm glad we are still discussing Taoism in this Taoism thread.

 

I'm also glad that there are Buddhist threads on this forum where Buddhist concepts can be freely discussed.

 

Yes, I had to go back and check the thread title - I got confused. I think we may need a hermetically sealed dependent origination thread so we don't get leakage.

 

:lol:

[Marblehead]

Yes, I had to go back and check the thread title - I got confused. I think we may need a hermetically sealed dependent origination thread so we don't get leakage.

 

:lol:

 

Hehehe. I've said enough today already. No more subtle hints from me.