Why the Taobums Can't Get Along

[forestofclarity]

I found this interesting article which explains many of the mysterious workings of the Taobums over the years.

 

http://www.hsuyun.org/chan/en/features/out...eck-stages.html

 

The short view is: there are four basic stages of spiritual development. The author noticed a trend in his psychotherapy practice: some people would become religious after therapy, and others less so. So he discovered the pattern of evolution:

 

I. Selfish, self-centered, willing to lie, cheat, and steal.

 

II. Fundamentalist view. Attached to the outward forms of religion. Ranges from light to extreme.

 

III. Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic. Questions things. Uses logic and reason.

 

IV. Mystic, communal. All things are unified.

 

Accordingly, the phases will increase in number, but those 2 steps ahead will not be understood.

 

So now we can answer things like:

 

Why can't the Taobums agree on even simple spiritual matters? Because we're all in different phases.

 

Why do Taoists argue with Buddhists, and vice versa? Obviously some Phase II views, missing the forest for the trees (or attaching to the manifest over the transcendental) (or seeing the 10,000 things over the Tao).

 

Why are the Buddhabums always arguing with Dwai about atman/anatta? Phase II views, whereas drawing analogies between Advaita and Buddhism is a phase IV activity. Phase II will never see it.

 

Why are there atheists/agnostics here? They may be going through spiritual growth, from III - IV.

 

Let the arguing begin. Or not. Whatever.

Edited January 14, 2010 by forestofemptiness

[Tao99]

That was cool. Seems to explain some things. Love that website, he was the teacher of my teacher's teacher. Thanks for posting. I think TTB get along pretty good considering it's an open public forum.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

I don't understand.

 

Peace & Love!

[Jack Runner]

Shoot, here I thought it was because everyone likes to feel they're "correct".

[Encephalon]

Edited January 14, 2010 by Blasto

[thuscomeone]

I found this interesting article which explains many of the mysterious workings of the Taobums over the years.

 

http://www.hsuyun.org/chan/en/features/out...eck-stages.html

 

The short view is: there are four basic stages of spiritual development. The author noticed a trend in his psychotherapy practice: some people would become religious after therapy, and others less so. So he discovered the pattern of evolution:

 

I. Selfish, self-centered, willing to lie, cheat, and steal.

 

II. Fundamentalist view. Attached to the outward forms of religion. Ranges from light to extreme.

 

III. Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic. Questions things. Uses logic and reason.

 

IV. Mystic, communal. All things are unified.

 

Accordingly, the phases will increase in number, but those 2 steps ahead will not be understood.

 

So now we can answer things like:

 

Why can't the Taobums agree on even simple spiritual matters? Because we're all in different phases.

 

Why do Taoists argue with Buddhists, and vice versa? Obviously some Phase II views, missing the forest for the trees (or attaching to the manifest over the transcendental) (or seeing the 10,000 things over the Tao).

 

Why are the Buddhabums always arguing with Dwai about atman/anatta? Phase II views, whereas drawing analogies between Advaita and Buddhism is a phase IV activity. Phase II will never see it.

 

Why are there atheists/agnostics here? They may be going through spiritual growth, from III - IV.

 

Let the arguing begin. Or not. Whatever.

I'm curious, does number 2 mean sticking to what you believe no matter what and continuing to claim that it is correct? I used to think this was a wrong attitude. Nowadays I am starting to believe otherwise. Why do some people seem to call anybody who believes they are correct and sticks to it a fundamentalist?

 

Does number 4 mean believing that nobody is more right than anybody else? If so, I have some qualms with those who believe that the most spiritually developed are they who believe that everyone is right and nobody is more right than anyone else.

 

Also, what does it mean by attaching to the "outward" forms of religion?

Edited January 14, 2010 by thuscomeone

[Trunk]

Since before this forum, I saw that it takes at least a half-dozen very different views to get any sort of rounded treatment of a topic. Impossible to do with just one person.

[宁]

the women's presence is too little, too much fire, over too little water imho

[Pero]

IV. Mystic, communal. All things are unified.

 

Also known as New Age Mix.

[Wayfarer64]

Since before this forum, I saw that it takes at least a half-dozen very different views to get any sort of rounded treatment of a topic. Impossible to do with just one person.

 

 

 

That sounds like an open minded way to see things.

 

I have always maintained that women are the basis of all civilization... look at how the Wild West of (our recent) yore developed....

 

It may have something to do with wanting to be settled somewhere to have young-uns...

love to all- Pat

[soaring crane]

Why do Taoists argue with Buddhists, and vice versa?

 

Actually, I'd say it's because they have virtually nothing in common.

[Encephalon]

Also known as New Age Mix.

 

I would probably have to say that for many, in America at least, the comparison between the New Age and the mystical, communal, non-duality tradition would be an unfair one for the latter. There is a sincere contemplative tradition from both the east and west that has nothing to do with New Age pop-spirituality.

Does the term New Age have a derogatory context in Europe too?

 

Actually, I'd say it's because they have virtually nothing in common.

 

 

The material you posted on leg meridians was very helpful. Thank you.

That being said, surely you must agree that in terms of nonduality, THE pillar of Asian philosophy, Taoism and Buddhism are in accord, yes? That's a pretty significant consensus, and not surprising at all given their mutual histories.

[Pero]

I would probably have to say that for many, in America at least, the comparison between the New Age and the mystical, communal, non-duality tradition would be an unfair one for the latter. There is a sincere contemplative tradition from both the east and west that has nothing to do with New Age pop-spirituality.

 

I'm not comparing. The writer is implying "All paths lead to Rome". That's New Age.

 

 

Does the term New Age have a derogatory context in Europe too?

 

I'm not sure, I didn't like the term much since first I heard of it and with time I guess it became sort of derogatory for me. I don't know how it is in Europe in general.

[Marblehead]

Actually, I'd say it's because they have virtually nothing in common.

 

I'm going to disagree with this in hopes that I get away clean with it.

 

Peace & Love!

[三江源]

.

Edited June 8, 2015 by 三江源

[Smile]

 

Actually, I'd say it's because they have virtually nothing in common.

Nice. I hope everyone else got it.

[Taomeow]

Nice. I hope everyone else got it.

I sure did.

 

The only thing they have in common is, westerners don't know much about them. They see a superficial similarity and they see that one can be mixed and matched with the other and historically was...

 

and what wasn't? I live in the land of fusion cooking and there's raw beef sushi on the menu of every good local Japanese restaurant, so someone superficially familiar with the menu might assert that beef sushi is authentic Japanese cuisine. Whereas beef was introduced and energetically promoted in Japan by an emperor who wanted a closer relationship with the West, and was not eaten there before. Once it was tasted, some Japanese liked it. Some proceeded to treat it the familiar way and put it raw on sushi. Nothing wrong with that. The Chinese did pretty much the same thing with buddhism once it was installed. Doesn't mean it has something in common with taoism, anymore than a cow has anything much in common with a tuna fish.

 

However, people who never tended cows or fished for tuna will easily mistake one for the other. Works on sushi. Doesn't work if you try to impose the cow's values on the tuna's lifestyle, or vice versa. Doesn't work if you insist on milking the tuna, and proclaim that a tuna fish that gives no milk is on the wrong path. Doesn't work if you insist the cow lives deep in the ocean, and proclaim that a cow that drowned when dropped there did so because she didn't understand the teachings of the buddha. Doesn't work if you can't tell the difference between two organically incompatible paradigms -- they can only be made compatible on some sushi platter or other when they are dead. Alive, they live different lives, taoism swims in the ocean, buddhism chews cud in the barn, both are fine and neither one needs to insist on taking the other's place. Otherwise you wind up with a bloated cow and a bloated tuna that will stink up the world.

[xabir2005]

I found this interesting article which explains many of the mysterious workings of the Taobums over the years.

 

http://www.hsuyun.org/chan/en/features/out...eck-stages.html

 

The short view is: there are four basic stages of spiritual development. The author noticed a trend in his psychotherapy practice: some people would become religious after therapy, and others less so. So he discovered the pattern of evolution:

 

I. Selfish, self-centered, willing to lie, cheat, and steal.

 

II. Fundamentalist view. Attached to the outward forms of religion. Ranges from light to extreme.

 

III. Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic. Questions things. Uses logic and reason.

 

IV. Mystic, communal. All things are unified.

 

Accordingly, the phases will increase in number, but those 2 steps ahead will not be understood.

 

So now we can answer things like:

 

Why can't the Taobums agree on even simple spiritual matters? Because we're all in different phases.

 

Why do Taoists argue with Buddhists, and vice versa? Obviously some Phase II views, missing the forest for the trees (or attaching to the manifest over the transcendental) (or seeing the 10,000 things over the Tao).

 

Why are the Buddhabums always arguing with Dwai about atman/anatta? Phase II views, whereas drawing analogies between Advaita and Buddhism is a phase IV activity. Phase II will never see it.

 

Why are there atheists/agnostics here? They may be going through spiritual growth, from III - IV.

 

Let the arguing begin. Or not. Whatever.

Stage II only applies to those who argue without understanding what is common to all.

 

Understanding and appreciating the similarities, yet also understanding the paradigm difference, would be stage V.

 

Also see the part of my comments on Dr. Loy at http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...of-insight.html

 

Thusness also felt that is important, that's why he told me to post it there.

 

Many people today, including majority of Buddhists, don't understand the difference. I see that many teachers at the Hsu Yun lineage (and many other different lineages) today have a very Advaita kind of view and experience.

Edited January 15, 2010 by xabir2005

[Encephalon]

I sure did.

 

The only thing they have in common is, westerners don't know much about them. They see a superficial similarity and they see that one can be mixed and matched with the other and historically was...

 

and what wasn't? I live in the land of fusion cooking and there's raw beef sushi on the menu of every good local Japanese restaurant, so someone superficially familiar with the menu might assert that beef sushi is authentic Japanese cuisine. Whereas beef was introduced and energetically promoted in Japan by an emperor who wanted a closer relationship with the West, and was not eaten there before. Once it was tasted, some Japanese liked it. Some proceeded to treat it the familiar way and put it raw on sushi. Nothing wrong with that. The Chinese did pretty much the same thing with buddhism once it was installed. Doesn't mean it has something in common with taoism, anymore than a cow has anything much in common with a tuna fish.

 

However, people who never tended cows or fished for tuna will easily mistake one for the other. Works on sushi. Doesn't work if you try to impose the cow's values on the tuna's lifestyle, or vice versa. Doesn't work if you insist on milking the tuna, and proclaim that a tuna fish that gives no milk is on the wrong path. Doesn't work if you insist the cow lives deep in the ocean, and proclaim that a cow that drowned when dropped there did so because she didn't understand the teachings of the buddha. Doesn't work if you can't tell the difference between two organically incompatible paradigms -- they can only be made compatible on some sushi platter or other when they are dead. Alive, they live different lives, taoism swims in the ocean, buddhism chews cud in the barn, both are fine and neither one needs to insist on taking the other's place. Otherwise you wind up with a bloated cow and a bloated tuna that will stink up the world.

 

 

Tunacow metaphors notwithstanding, do you not think it significant that they both Buddhism and Taoism subscribe to nonduality, even though they originated in different countries, while dualistic thinking is virtually endemic to the Western intellectual tradition? This distinction between east and west is one of the biggest paradigmatic fault lines humanity has ever created. It's regularly discussed by the academic Buddhist community and those voices in east/west dialogue. How can you be so cavalier in dismissing it? To resort to my own metaphor, this is like someone from Santa Barbara claiming to have no similarities with someone living in Santa Monica. Laplanders would probably find the differences irrelevent beside the similarities.

[That Guy]

Just thought I'd let you all know, I AM LEVEL 5! or level V if you prefer roman numerals

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

I sure did.

 

The only thing they have in common is, westerners don't know much about them. They see a superficial similarity and they see that one can be mixed and matched with the other and historically was...

 

and what wasn't? I live in the land of fusion cooking and there's raw beef sushi on the menu of every good local Japanese restaurant, so someone superficially familiar with the menu might assert that beef sushi is authentic Japanese cuisine. Whereas beef was introduced and energetically promoted in Japan by an emperor who wanted a closer relationship with the West, and was not eaten there before. Once it was tasted, some Japanese liked it. Some proceeded to treat it the familiar way and put it raw on sushi. Nothing wrong with that. The Chinese did pretty much the same thing with buddhism once it was installed. Doesn't mean it has something in common with taoism, anymore than a cow has anything much in common with a tuna fish.

 

However, people who never tended cows or fished for tuna will easily mistake one for the other. Works on sushi. Doesn't work if you try to impose the cow's values on the tuna's lifestyle, or vice versa. Doesn't work if you insist on milking the tuna, and proclaim that a tuna fish that gives no milk is on the wrong path. Doesn't work if you insist the cow lives deep in the ocean, and proclaim that a cow that drowned when dropped there did so because she didn't understand the teachings of the buddha. Doesn't work if you can't tell the difference between two organically incompatible paradigms -- they can only be made compatible on some sushi platter or other when they are dead. Alive, they live different lives, taoism swims in the ocean, buddhism chews cud in the barn, both are fine and neither one needs to insist on taking the other's place. Otherwise you wind up with a bloated cow and a bloated tuna that will stink up the world.

 

1.3 billion Chinese must be quite misguided in their thought process then...how sad for them. As one told me about a couple of week ago he would be more than happy to practice Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity at the same time and sees no contradiction even if you did point them out to him. These contradictions only exist in the mind of westerners. I can't even begin to explain how the thought process works, it takes some years to 'get it' and when you do you will wish you hadn't.

 

 

Tunacow metaphors notwithstanding, do you not think it significant that they both Buddhism and Taoism subscribe to nonduality, even though they originated in different countries, while dualistic thinking is virtually endemic to the Western intellectual tradition? This distinction between east and west is one of the biggest paradigmatic fault lines humanity has ever created. It's regularly discussed by the academic Buddhist community and those voices in east/west dialogue. How can you be so cavalier in dismissing it? To resort to my own metaphor, this is like someone from Santa Barbara claiming to have no similarities with someone living in Santa Monica. Laplanders would probably find the differences irrelevent beside the similarities.

 

What you said.

[Tao99]

1.3 billion Chinese must be quite misguided in their thought process then...

 

How do they reconcile indestructible diamond body spirit with selfless emptiness? This is the tunacow fork in the road.

[Taomeow]

Tunacow metaphors notwithstanding, do you not think it significant that they both Buddhism and Taoism subscribe to nonduality, even though they originated in different countries, while dualistic thinking is virtually endemic to the Western intellectual tradition? This distinction between east and west is one of the biggest paradigmatic fault lines humanity has ever created. It's regularly discussed by the academic Buddhist community and those voices in east/west dialogue. How can you be so cavalier in dismissing it? To resort to my own metaphor, this is like someone from Santa Barbara claiming to have no similarities with someone living in Santa Monica. Laplanders would probably find the differences irrelevent beside the similarities.

We would have to define our terminology first. Let me try to see what you mean when you say nonduality.

 

1. Advaita of Hinduism, Tengri the One God of Mongols, pantheism of totemic cultures, Shema of Judaism, oroborus of the South American and Pacific Islander and Eastern Siberian tribes?.. Or something buddhism and taoism have in common with each other but not with any of these?

 

2. If two systems have a key component in common, are they interchangeable? E.g., humans and chimps have 99.7% of all our genetic material in common. Does it mean we are pretty much the same creature and one can replace the other at any and all of its tasks?

 

3. Most importantly. If you divide the world into "east" and "west" based on religious beliefs and languages used to formulate them, Buddhism and Taoism fall on different sides of the east-west distinction you propose, Buddhism being part of the Indo-European ("west") family and taoism, of the East Asian ("east") family. If you insist on the east-west dichotomy, you have to be consistent and view the buddhist paradigm as part of the "western" rather than "eastern" heritage.

 

That's because it's not duality-nonduality that determine the affinities and affiliations of a paradigm (for duality-nonduality of it can't be used as a meaninful distinction pointer because it is present globally, decided upon culturally, and has crossed the east-west and north-south borders many times. All African tribal views are nondualistic, then some of them convert to Christianity and some to Islam and both have both non-dualistic and dualistic branches and schools of thought. SO WHAT. It's not where the big deal is...) Duality-nonduality, in other words, is culturally important on occasion (like fashion or a particular technology currently in vogue) but semantically trivial.

 

What does determine the east-west split of doctrines is first and foremost the language of their creators that has helped shape them as either object-oriented (western) or process-oriented (eastern). The Indo-European family of languages (I didn't make it up, I have a degree in comparative linguistics) is characterized by many nouns it employs to shape its discourse with reality; consequently, their users come up with static images and "ultimate outcomes" and "higher goals" of their abstract ideation precisely because they have an abundance of grammatical means to express them, AND few to express dynamic images (time- and change-aware rather than things-aware -- like the taoist "five moments/phases/movements of transformation/transition/change of qi" that get immediately translated as "the five elements" as soon as they hit an Indo-European language -- get objectified, stripped of their nature of a "process" and wrongfully ascribed a nature of a static "thing.")

 

The East Asian group of languages (linguistically unrelated) has given rise to cognitive paradigms that go with the flow -- and the emphasis is not on an "object" or "objective" to go toward or away from -- the emphasis is on the flow itself. Not in some dumb new agey "living in the moment" sense where no living and no moment are actually happening so much as they are being talked about. In the sense that the flow is enriched by the process of living and knowing it, much like true love is not "at first sight" but "greater at every next sight" -- you get to know the person in the process of loving her, you get to love what you are in the process of getting to know -- that's how the flow is handled. You are not in some indistinct "now" -- you are in a precise, ever-changing, ever-valid (not illusory anymore than any other) texture that spells, to one living it, e.g., something like "warm, soft, moist, timely, fragrant, cherished, in need of protection, funny to look at from the top, flowing from the kidneys, redirected by dong quai, modulated by licorice, in the Seventh Palace under a Money Star, ancient, reliable," whatever -- on and on you notice reality and its energies and swim in that and know and feel and think and live instead of resenting and seeking to "transcend" so as to be "one with everything." A taoist is one with everything not "later" and not "if she deserves it by thinking the Right Thougts and doing the Right Actions" and not "if she escapes rebirth" -- humbug!-- she is one with everything by virtue of being and becoming -- simultaneously and at all times and in all states. That's the taoist process. What its philosophy thinks about duality or nonduality is as interesting to this process as the texture of the armchair in which the thinker of this thought entertains it. No more. No less.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Taomeow

[Sarnyn]

1.3 billion Chinese must be quite misguided in their thought process then...how sad for them. As one told me about a couple of week ago he would be more than happy to practice Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity at the same time and sees no contradiction even if you did point them out to him. These contradictions only exist in the mind of westerners. I can't even begin to explain how the thought process works, it takes some years to 'get it' and when you do you will wish you hadn't.

What you said.

 

 

Hmmm.... I just wanted to briefly say that there are teachings in Tibetan Buddhism, specifically about the rainbow body, which is very similar to the concept of the Taoist diamond body.

 

When I say the same, what I mean is, functions the same in a cosmological sense, but might have subtle distinctions in what we see as the ultimate deep reality of either. In other words, the rainbow body is said to be composed of the "five pure lights" and the diamond body is said to be similar in substance to light as well. Both are described at times as existing in as an enduring... timeless quality.

 

What is interesting about Tibetan Buddhism is that we could probably say (if we wanted to make a broad generalization) that it is among the schools of Buddhism that have had the least influence from Taoism, and yet, the we find similar teachings in tibetan buddhism to the Taoist "diamond body."

 

I of course would not be the one to say that the practices are interchangeable... so that's not my ultimate point here. What is my point then? I'm not sure.

 

Sorry if that last post was a bit of a thread derail, it's not exactly on topic.

[~jK~]

Edited January 15, 2010 by ~jK~