Taoist views on Buddhist way

[Aaron]

where does the difference between the two lie? i don't understand your point in #4

 

I disagree on a few of your responses, but it would just be quibbling to respond to them, but I did want to respond to your confusion regarding #4. In the Taoist view compassion is not practiced for ulterior motives, but rather as a natural occurrence of Te. The Taoist who is practicing compassion, without the constraints of virtue, morality, or ideology, is doing so because it is a perfectly natural response to what he experiences in the world. His self sacrifice, does not arise out of desire or non-desire, but out of an intuitive response to his environment. In my view many Buddhists practice compassion, not in response to their awareness of their environment, so much as it being a proscription of belief. Taoists might view this as a virtuous act, rather than Te.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, when I refer to common man, I mean someone who is not of upper class standing, so in that sense the vast majority of the Buddhist texts were geared to the layman practitioner, rather than rulers and nobles.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Aaron

[konchog uma]

I disagree on a few of your responses, but it would just be quibbling to respond to them,

 

ohkayyy

 

but I did want to respond to your confusion regarding #4. In the Taoist view compassion is not practiced for ulterior motives, but rather as a natural occurrence of Te. The Taoist who is practicing compassion, without the constraints of virtue, morality, or ideology, is doing so because it is a perfectly natural response to what he experiences in the world. His self sacrifice, does not arise out of desire or non-desire, but out of an intuitive response to his environment. In my view many Buddhists practice compassion, not in response to their awareness of their environment, so much as it being a proscription of belief. Taoists might view this as a virtuous act, rather than Te.

 

im glad you said "in my view" because that statement really involves you superimposing your beliefs about buddhists onto the compassion of many buddhists, as you put it. But i dont really see the two as being mutually exclusive, i see the two lines of action-response as happening simultaneously. On one hand spiritually developed people have a natural te response to suffering which is compassionate and in a right brained way, and on the other hand, they are aware that compassion is the appropriate response to suffering in a left brained way.

 

so in my view -g- both hemispheres are working at the same time and there is no mutual exclusivity

 

edit- Also, when I refer to common man, I mean someone who is not of upper class standing, so in that sense the vast majority of the Buddhist texts were geared to the layman practitioner, rather than rulers and nobles.

 

well lao wrote the ddj for a border guard according to legend, and its only later interpretations that geared it towards rulers and kings, about power and leadership. it can be translated just as easily as being universal. imo.

 

but point taken, thanks for your reponse..

[Aaron]

ohkayyy

 

 

 

im glad you said "in my view" because that statement really involves you superimposing your beliefs about buddhists onto the compassion of many buddhists, as you put it. But i dont really see the two as being mutually exclusive, i see the two lines of action-response as happening simultaneously. On one hand spiritually developed people have a natural te response to suffering which is compassionate and in a right brained way, and on the other hand, they are aware that compassion is the appropriate response to suffering in a left brained way.

 

so in my view -g- both hemispheres are working at the same time and there is no mutual exclusivity

 

 

 

well lao wrote the ddj for a border guard according to legend, and its only later interpretations that geared it towards rulers and kings, about power and leadership. it can be translated just as easily as being universal. imo.

 

but point taken, thanks for your reponse..

 

Actually what you're quoting is a myth. If we believe that, should we also believe Buddha was born from an elephant and that Jesus walked on water? I know it's a more practical myth, but the point is that there is nothing in the writings to actually indicate he wrote it for a border guard, not one single reference, which seems quite odd when you think about it.

 

Also I say "my opinion", but I think many people have the same opinion in regards to Buddhist compassion. I think a lot (most maybe) do not practice compassion because they are "highly evolved spiritually", but rather because they are following the dogma of their religious teachings. I'm actually going to be starting a topic with that theme soon, just want to collect my thoughts first.

 

Aaron

[C T]

 

Sensible talk on compassion. Some might find it helpful, i hope.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

5) Most Buddhists texts were written for the common man, the Tao Te Ching was written for rulers and not intended for the common man. Most likely Lao Tzu believed most men were incapable of following his teachings and only those of noble blood, educated, and who commanded a degree of political power could put them into practice in a way that could change the world on a large scale.

 

 

Lao Tzu spoke about the actions of "wise people" especially in the early chapters. This was intended for guidance to anyone who had the good fortune to read it. He is not talking about "the superior man" in these chapters but "wise people." Wise people are natural leaders, so he talks about how people who follow his advice can fulfill this inevitable role effectively, not just to people who are in positions of power by arbitrary political means.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Aaron]

 

 

Lao Tzu spoke about the actions of "wise people" especially in the early chapters. This was intended for guidance to anyone who had the good fortune to read it. He is not talking about "the superior man" in these chapters but "wise people." Wise people are natural leaders, so he talks about how people who follow his advice can fulfill this inevitable role effectively, not just to people who are in positions of power by arbitrary political means.

 

I think you may be seeing what you want to see, rather than what is actually there.

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

Actually what you're quoting is a myth. If we believe that, should we also believe Buddha was born from an elephant and that Jesus walked on water? I know it's a more practical myth, but the point is that there is nothing in the writings to actually indicate he wrote it for a border guard, not one single reference, which seems quite odd when you think about it.

 

which is why i said "according to legend". anyway my point was about the translation of the work, not the legend surrounding it.

 

Also I say "my opinion", but I think many people have the same opinion in regards to Buddhist compassion. I think a lot (most maybe) do not practice compassion because they are "highly evolved spiritually", but rather because they are following the dogma of their religious teachings. I'm actually going to be starting a topic with that theme soon, just want to collect my thoughts first.

 

Aaron

 

youre clearly hanging out with all the wrong buddhists.

 

do you even hang out with buddhists? or do you just assume that since the loudest ones are usually the most dogmatic, that all buddhists are therefore dogmatic?

 

i wonder where people get their ideas about buddhism if they aren't studying the dharma itself.. funny notions going around

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think you may be seeing what you want to see, rather than what is actually there.

 

Aaron

 

Well, I can't be bothered to take the time necessary to point it all out to you, so think what you want to think..

[konchog uma]

btw aaron lightness skill has been known to enable practitioners to walk on water, jesus is far from the only one who supposedly accomplished it, yogis and meditators of many traditions have stories about their walking on water and doing miraculous things. Your logic seems to be that all legends are false, and i don't really know where to begin in addressing that. i looked on http://www.yourlogicalfallacyis.com but theres not one for that particular point of view. hmmm

 

and shakyamuni was born to maya, his mother, and not an elephant

 

nothing personal just keeping facts straight

[C T]

which is why i said "according to legend". anyway my point was about the translation of the work, not the legend surrounding it.

 

 

 

youre clearly hanging out with all the wrong buddhists.

 

do you even hang out with buddhists? or do you just assume that since the loudest ones are usually the most dogmatic, that all buddhists are therefore dogmatic?

 

 

 

You mean, like ALL pitbulls are, by virtue of breed, insanely vicious??

 

[konchog uma]

lol exactly

[Aaron]

Well, I can't be bothered to take the time necessary to point it all out to you, so think what you want to think..

 

Okay, let me be more to the point. The sages that Lao Tzu was talking about were the Sage Kings of old, the Yellow Emperor, etc. not men who were sagely. Anyone who reads the Tao Te Ching and fails to see that it was directed as a book teaching rulers how to lead their country by living in harmony with others is missing the point. Are there lessons we can learn from the Tao Te Ching? Certainly, but that doesn't mean that the intended message was for you or me. Lao Tzu worked in the government, understood the government, and had ideas about how to change the government. He knew that you and I could never accomplish the kinds of changes that needed to take place, but that the rulers of the land could if they followed his simple lesson. If you think otherwise, fine, but find the passages that talk about the common man making those changes compared to the number of passages talking about the ruler making those changes and I think you'll see the point.

 

Aaron

Edited August 26, 2012 by Aaron

[Aaron]

You mean, like ALL pitbulls are, by virtue of breed, insanely vicious??

 

 

Almost as cute as this one...

 

 

and this one...

 

 

Wow... you're right, they're really sweet. I'm going to recommend everyone who's elderly or who has small children to run out and get one, I mean that one dog is sleeping with a kitten so they have to be sweet animals. (Oh should we mention the incident where the neighbor's pitbull got a hold of one that wandered in its leash range and tore it to shreds?)

 

I like how you're trying to disprove my argument because I recognize the dangers these dogs possess, even though there is plenty of evidence to support the dangers they pose. If I remember correctly wasn't someone on this thread recently bitten by a pitbull and had to give up the dog?

 

Aaron

Edited August 26, 2012 by Aaron

[Aaron]

lol exactly

 

Yeah he got me... but before you laugh too loud, keep this in mind...

 

 

Yep... are you still laughing or are you wondering how virtuous it is to respond to an argument by bringing up another argument from months back. Sort of like having no real evidence to support your statement, so rather than support it, just try to destroy the credibility of the person speaking. Oh well... life goes on. I'm sure this is some form of right speech I missed.

 

Aaron

Edited August 26, 2012 by Aaron

[konchog uma]

yeah. um like i said nothing personal. and yeah lol still laughing... at least i responded to the argument.

 

i like how you don't respond to anything i said about buddhism except to get all crappy about how i brought up pit bulls. wish people treated them better, still love them. still laughing at CTs joke. i've known too many wonderful pits to live in fear of them all.

 

no need to respond, this conversation is over.

Edited August 26, 2012 by anamatva

[Aaron]

yeah. um like i said nothing personal.

 

i like how you don't respond to anything i said except to get all crappy about how i love pit bulls. wish people treated them better, still love them.

 

no need to respond, this conversation is over

 

Not getting crappy about how you love pitbulls, just telling you what I see is happening. Also I've responded to everything you said and when I said I didn't want to quibble it was because I didn't see the point in nitpicking your other comments, when they really were a matter of your own opinion. They weren't that big of a deal that I felt it was necessary to respond to them, it wasn't meant to be an insult, I just don't have all the time in the world to spend on Tao Bums anymore, so I try to make the most of the time I have by responding to those things I think deserve a real response. If I didn't think you had said something of value to respond to I wouldn't have responded as I did. So I would agree, we shouldn't take things personally, nor jump to conclusions.

 

Aaron

Edited August 26, 2012 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Could we, instead of taking potshots at people, try to stay on topic? Or is that too much to ask?

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

well im glad we have our priorities straight about whats worth responding to lol

[konchog uma]

i was on topic, you didnt respond to the topic, and then you went on a tirade about pit bulls so dont go asking me to stay on topic

 

if i thought youd respond to the topic id stay on it lol

[Aaron]

i was on topic, you didnt respond to the topic, and then you went on a tirade about pit bulls so dont go asking me to stay on topic

 

if i thought youd respond to the topic id stay on it lol

 

Hah... I see what I missed now. Sorry about that. First, I hang out with Buddhists. I talk with them frequently enough. They're good people, but I wouldn't say they are special or necessarily any nicer or kinder than the Christians I hang out with. I think most of them practice for the same reasons Christians do, so that when they die they can go to a better place, and thus I find that most are doing what they do, not necessarily because they've become highly evolved spiritually, but rather because they are following the instructions of their religion.

 

In regards to lightening practice, show me some proof and I'll believe it. My point is that a lot of what we believe to be true can't be proven, hence we should always take it with a grain of salt. A lot of the miracle stuff is added (imo) later on by followers who want people to believe that their messiah/guru wasn't just a simple man, but a super man worthy of following.

 

The LOL thing might've been taken the wrong way. I thought you were doing it sarcastically, when you may have been replying to the youtube video itself. Either way, if I offended you I do apologize.

 

Aaron

Edited August 26, 2012 by Aaron

[C T]

I like how you're trying to disprove my argument because I recognize the dangers these dogs possess, even though there is plenty of evidence to support the dangers they pose. If I remember correctly wasn't someone on this thread recently bitten by a pitbull and had to give up the dog?

 

Aaron

 

The only danger is man's carelessness in the presence of an animal... any animal, even kangaroos!! Plenty people in Australia get attacked (mostly kicked, but bites are common too) by roos, yet there are no widely publicized calls for their ban. Why? Cos its a known and accepted fact that if someone was silly enough to get attacked by one, he or she probably deserves a swift lesson in respecting their space. Ironically, the only kangaroo campaign currently attracting support is the one which is calling for an end to the mindless (but apparently profitable) slaughter of these creatures.

 

With enough care and awareness, most nasty incidences can be avoided, including the one where i was accidentally bitten. The poor guy had to go not because he has a vicious nature, but that he and my other male dog could not co-exist without each trying to exert territorial might, which is, fYi, a natural thing in the animal world -- its called 'alpha male'ing.

 

(apologizes profusely for diverting from the main topic)

Edited August 26, 2012 by C T

[konchog uma]

Hah... I see what I missed now. Sorry about that. First, I hang out with Buddhists. I talk with them frequently enough. They're good people, but I wouldn't say they are special or necessarily any nicer or kinder than the Christians I hang out with. I think most of them practice for the same reasons Christians do, so that when they die they can go to a better place, and thus I find that most are doing what they do, not necessarily because they've become highly evolved spiritually, but rather because they are following the instructions of their religion.

 

nature isn't "nice" or "kind" and christians and buddhists are a world apart in their motivations, but if thats your view of things, you're welcome to it. far be it from me to continue in this vein any further.

 

In regards to lightening practice, show me some proof and I'll believe it. My point is that a lot of what we believe to be true can't be proven, hence we should always take it with a grain of salt. A lot of the miracle stuff is added (imo) later on by followers who want people to believe that their messiah/guru wasn't just a simple man, but a super man worthy of following.

 

there are vids of qigong masters walking on paper, im sure if you wanted to see them you would find them. and im sure that if you wanted to disbelieve them too you would.

 

im gracefully dropping out of this conversation, five posts after i said i was. talking to you about buddhism always irritates me.

[flowing hands]

Taoism and Buddhism are two completely different things, although nowadays they have become clouded because of Chinese imperial favor passing from one to the other and so many things have been adopted and mixed together.

 

Their roots stem from completely different backgrounds; Taoism started from ancient shamanistic cultures pre-dating Buddhism by up to 10,000 years. Taoism never set out to save individuals on mass from suffering, there has never been this aim. Taoist believe that it is natural for things to suffer and to enjoy the flow of the ups and downs of life.

 

The core of Taoism is about personal growth and how to influence others without acting or doing very little to upset the natural order.

[konchog uma]

Hi flowing hands

 

you may be interested to know that the Bon tradition of Tibetan shamanism lists a line of Buddhas that dates back to previous ages, and that Buddhism didn't start with Shakyamuni. As reported by Lopon Tenzin Namdak in Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings:

 

"...there have been many Buddhas in the past history of this planet, the historical Buddha Shakyamuni merely being the last in their number. According to ancient Indian Buddhist belief, there have been six prehistoric Buddhas who preceded Shakyamuni, namely, Vipashyin, Shikhin, Vishvabhu, Krakucchanda, Kanakamuni and Kashyapa. It was said that even in his own day when Shakyamuni was still a young prince, a few followers of the earlier Buddha Kashyapa still existed. ...another list in early Buddhist scriptures records twenty-four Buddhas from Shakyamuni back to the Buddha Dipankara in the distant past. Both Buddhists and Bonpos agree that Maitreya will be the next Buddha, whose advent will be some time in the indefinite future."

Edited August 26, 2012 by anamatva

[flowing hands]

Hi flowing hands

 

you may be interested to know that the Bon tradition of Tibetan shamanism lists a line of Buddhas that dates back to previous ages, and that Buddhism didn't start with Shakyamuni. As reported by Lopon Tenzin Namdak in Bonpo Dzogchen Teachings:

 

"...there have been many Buddhas in the past history of this planet, the historical Buddha Shakyamuni merely being the last in their number. According to ancient Indian Buddhist belief, there have been six prehistoric Buddhas who preceded Shakyamuni, namely, Vipashyin, Shikhin, Vishvabhu, Krakucchanda, Kanakamuni and Kashyapa. It was said that even in his own day when Shakyamuni was still a young prince, a few followers of the earlier Buddha Kashyapa still existed. ...another list in early Buddhist scriptures records twenty-four Buddhas from Shakyamuni back to the Buddha Dipankara in the distant past. Both Buddhists and Bonpos agree that Maitreya will be the next Buddha, whose advent will be some time in the indefinite future."

 

Hello Anamatva,

 

what one believes and what is actually true are completely different things. There lies some great debate, but what I have been told is that it is the Taoists, those that follow the path of nature and natural forces, rule and have been alive in spirit form for the longest of any Gods or Immortals present and that comparatively, Buddhism is a new religion by that standard. I am not being biased at all, considering that one of my main teachers is a Buddha. When one considers this fact, that the oldest Immortal was created when the very beginning of all things came into existence (the big bang). Now they are a Taoist by definition. Any other Gods pale into insignificance in comparison. This God lives in its spirit form in the galaxies wandering as the universes expand. I suppose at some stage when this expansion has stopped it will travel around all that has been created. Even the Immortals in the Heavenly void cannot contact it, it is so far away from us. Though they are capable of travelling unimaginable distances in seconds and could seek it out. Just some thoughts for you.