Question for Taoists and Buddhists

[Birch Tree]

Hello friends,

 

I would welcome your thoughts on a couple of things that I have been thinking about. First of all, I have been reading selections of the Pali Canon (an English translation). At any rate, I have been struck by a couple of things as I have been reading.

 

First of all, I have been thinking about the Buddhist idea of impermanence. I find this idea to be quite appealing as empirically it seems that all things in this world are indeed impermanent. Thus, severing attachment to these things also appears to be spiritually and psychologically beneficial. I like this idea quite a bit and I've been thinking about it from a Taoist point of view. From my own personal readings, it does not appear that this idea is inconsistent with Taoist precepts. The Tao is unknown to us, but the manifestations that flow from the Tao (the "ten thousand things") are temporary, are they not? If this is true, then does it not follow that Taoist would also find refuge in the severing of attachments to the "ten thousand things"?

 

Secondly, I am curious what some of my fellow Taoists think about karma and rebirth. Obviously these are central ideas in Buddhism, but I am curious to know what others think about these things.

 

Lastly, I have a question for my Buddhist friends on these boards. As I have been reading these selections from the Pali Canon, I have a question that I ask in all seriousness about Buddhism: Is there a tension between the self-interest in attaining nirvana (enlightenment) and offerings for the benefit of all sentient beings?

 

Let me explain what I mean by this question with an example: Suppose I just finished meditating and doing some mantras on my mala and I offer this up for the benefit of all sentient beings (which from what I can tell seems to be a fairly standard thing to do among Buddhists). Now to my question: why would someone do this--why offer for the benefit of all sentient beings? Obviously the pure of heart would do it out of love for others and I get that. However, I have also heard that doing this generates positivity for the practitioner and aids them on their journey to enlightenment (quite possibly through favorable rebirths). So is the idea to help oneself by helping others? Or is it merely an afterthought that one might actually help him/herself by offering for the benefit of all sentient beings? OR is this a way to get less developed practitioners into the habit of thinking about helping others? I also recognize that I could be way off on all of this as well and I implore your patience with me.

 

My friends, I hope you will aid me by sharing your thoughts and wisdom on these matters as I try to clear up these questions in my own mind. I ask these questions in all seriousness and humility as I continue on my own spiritual journey.

 

Peace and thanks,

 

Birch Tree

[ralis]

Hello friends,

 

I would welcome your thoughts on a couple of things that I have been thinking about. First of all, I have been reading selections of the Pali Canon (an English translation). At any rate, I have been struck by a couple of things as I have been reading.

 

First of all, I have been thinking about the Buddhist idea of impermanence. I find this idea to be quite appealing as empirically it seems that all things in this world are indeed impermanent. Thus, severing attachment to these things also appears to be spiritually and psychologically beneficial. I like this idea quite a bit and I've been thinking about it from a Taoist point of view. From my own personal readings, it does not appear that this idea is inconsistent with Taoist precepts. The Tao is unknown to us, but the manifestations that flow from the Tao (the "ten thousand things") are temporary, are they not? If this is true, then does it not follow that Taoist would also find refuge in the severing of attachments to the "ten thousand things"?

 

Secondly, I am curious what some of my fellow Taoists think about karma and rebirth. Obviously these are central ideas in Buddhism, but I am curious to know what others think about these things.

 

Lastly, I have a question for my Buddhist friends on these boards. As I have been reading these selections from the Pali Canon, I have a question that I ask in all seriousness about Buddhism: Is there a tension between the self-interest in attaining nirvana (enlightenment) and offerings for the benefit of all sentient beings?

 

Let me explain what I mean by this question with an example: Suppose I just finished meditating and doing some mantras on my mala and I offer this up for the benefit of all sentient beings (which from what I can tell seems to be a fairly standard thing to do among Buddhists). Now to my question: why would someone do this--why offer for the benefit of all sentient beings? Obviously the pure of heart would do it out of love for others and I get that. However, I have also heard that doing this generates positivity for the practitioner and aids them on their journey to enlightenment (quite possibly through favorable rebirths). So is the idea to help oneself by helping others? Or is it merely an afterthought that one might actually help him/herself by offering for the benefit of all sentient beings? OR is this a way to get less developed practitioners into the habit of thinking about helping others? I also recognize that I could be way off on all of this as well and I implore your patience with me.

 

My friends, I hope you will aid me by sharing your thoughts and wisdom on these matters as I try to clear up these questions in my own mind. I ask these questions in all seriousness and humility as I continue on my own spiritual journey.

 

Peace and thanks,

 

Birch Tree

 

 

I submit that whatever ism one pursues, the realization of the so called truth of a belief system is just a relative experience for the believer. This is mistakenly interpreted as objective fact! Furthermore, while delving deeper into the experience (transcendent experiences, scriptures etc,) the possibility of being lost and not free is amplified.

 

In a previous thread that discusses a conversation between Buddha and a God, there seems to be a necessity to believe such stories are necessary to validate ones belief in a so called spiritually enlightened teacher. A world teacher no less! This story is taken as absolute fact and misses the whole point!

 

 

Is it possible to make ones quest, art and science? After all, the universe is one dynamic process, where the only absolute is change.

 

 

ralis

Edited March 10, 2010 by ralis

[Birch Tree]

I submit that whatever ism one pursues, the realization of the so called truth of a belief system is just a relative experience for the believer. This is mistakenly interpreted as objective fact! Furthermore, while delving deeper into the experience (transcendent experiences, scriptures etc,) the possibility of being lost and not free is amplified.

 

In a previous thread that discusses a conversation between Buddha and a God, there seems to be a necessity to believe such stories are necessary to validate ones belief in a so called spiritually enlightened teacher. A world teacher no less! This story is taken as absolute fact and misses the whole point!

 

 

Is it possible to make ones quest, art and science? After all, the universe is one dynamic process, where the only absolute is change.

 

 

ralis

 

Hi ralis,

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I personally have come to see Jiddu Krishnamurti's view of meditation and insight as informative--which fits with your assertion that the individual defines the experience, subjective as that experience may be.

 

I am not sure what you mean about the stories. I apologize in that I am unfamiliar with the story of the discussion between a God and Buddha. Generally speaking, I am not a "literalist" in my interpretation of texts like the Pali canon, and also I currently have no physical teacher other than myself and the world. This is also in keeping with Krishnamurti's idea of meditation and insight, but I would like to save a discussion of Krishnamurti for another time unless you (or others) think it relevant in the current context. If you are willing to share some more of your time, I would welcome further explanation on the God-Buddha story you are referring to and how it connects to the questions I posed in my original post.

 

Peace ralis,

 

Birch Tree

[Athanor]

First of all, I have been thinking about the Buddhist idea of impermanence. I find this idea to be quite appealing as empirically it seems that all things in this world are indeed impermanent. Thus, severing attachment to these things also appears to be spiritually and psychologically beneficial. I like this idea quite a bit and I've been thinking about it from a Taoist point of view. From my own personal readings, it does not appear that this idea is inconsistent with Taoist precepts. The Tao is unknown to us, but the manifestations that flow from the Tao (the "ten thousand things") are temporary, are they not? If this is true, then does it not follow that Taoist would also find refuge in the severing of attachments to the "ten thousand things"?

Yes. Yes, it does. Getting rid of attachment is what we otherwise call liberation, which is a step towards enlightenment.

 

Lastly, I have a question for my Buddhist friends on these boards. As I have been reading these selections from the Pali Canon, I have a question that I ask in all seriousness about Buddhism: Is there a tension between the self-interest in attaining nirvana (enlightenment) and offerings for the benefit of all sentient beings?

 

Let me explain what I mean by this question with an example: Suppose I just finished meditating and doing some mantras on my mala and I offer this up for the benefit of all sentient beings (which from what I can tell seems to be a fairly standard thing to do among Buddhists). Now to my question: why would someone do this--why offer for the benefit of all sentient beings? Obviously the pure of heart would do it out of love for others and I get that. However, I have also heard that doing this generates positivity for the practitioner and aids them on their journey to enlightenment (quite possibly through favorable rebirths). So is the idea to help oneself by helping others? Or is it merely an afterthought that one might actually help him/herself by offering for the benefit of all sentient beings? OR is this a way to get less developed practitioners into the habit of thinking about helping others? I also recognize that I could be way off on all of this as well and I implore your patience with me.

When you offer the merit of your deeds for the sake of others, it doesn't actually benefit others in a literal way. However, practicing this offering helps you avoid clinging to the fruits of your deeds, which would be karmic attachment, which would lead to rebirth instead of enlightenment.

You can't really practice without having an intention to do something for your own sake. I mean, even when you do something for others, you do it because you feel good about it. You basically always do what is good for you.

The highest good what you can do to yourself is enlightenment, and it can be attained through the liberation of attachment to the "ten thousand things". So being selfless, doing things for others, offering your merits to others, and practicing for the sake of all sentient beings - these all, at the same time, are very much the best things what you can do to yourself. This is why being most selfless means being the most selfish. The difference between a selfish and a selfless person is that the selfless person doesn't care about the effects of his deeds on his own life, while the selfish person only cares for this. When you constantly keep reminding yourself that doing selfless things will lead you to enlightenment, then you constantly neutralize the effects and stay selfish, and distant from enlightenment.

[Birch Tree]

ralis:

 

Ok, I think I may have missed the point you were getting at but let me try again. I've thought about what you said and I am wondering if you were referring to a question of epistemology. I made the claim in my original post that empirically we can observe the "ten thousand things" and see that they are not permanent. But if I am reading what you are saying correctly, you are cautioning against leaning too hard on one's own empirical observations. However, your final line suggests that you also believe in the impermanence of the "ten thousand things" ("...the only absolute is change.").

 

Athanor:

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your explanation of selfish-selflessness--this helps a lot. If you don't mind my asking, do you suppose a person who makes offerings for the benefit of all sentient beings creates "good karma" (or gets rid of "bad karma") for themselves? If so, would this in turn give them a better chance at a favorable rebirth (or help them in some way toward enlightenment)? Also, I am wondering if such an offering would help others gain favorable rebirths (or help them toward enlightenment in some way)?

 

I am curious to know your thoughts on these matters.

 

Thank you both for taking the time to consider my questions and to help further my understanding.

 

Sincerely,

 

Birch Tree

[RyanO]

Deep topic! You may find disagreement because these can be polarizing questions, and the answers vary depending on the religious context.

 

My own views can be found here:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/13809-long-term-hedonism-and-religion/page__hl__hedonism

 

So I'm not a Buddhist nor a religious Taoist, more of a philosophical one, so maybe I'm not the best person to answer your question. I am agnostic regarding existence after death, which makes the selfishness-selflessness ethic a little more difficult.

 

Like Athanor, I don't really believe in pure altruism. But at the same time, I think some Buddhists do. I think seeing the Bodhisattva vow as the best thing someone can do for themselves takes away some of its meaning. In fact, the vow may be harmful to one's own person. But again, it all depends on religious context.

 

Regarding your first question, I think it is good to lessen attachment to the 'ten thousand things', but that doesn't mean you can't play with them.

[Stigweard]

The Tao is unknown to us, but the manifestations that flow from the Tao (the "ten thousand things") are temporary, are they not? If this is true, then does it not follow that Taoist would also find refuge in the severing of attachments to the "ten thousand things"?

 

Secondly, I am curious what some of my fellow Taoists think about karma and rebirth. Obviously these are central ideas in Buddhism, but I am curious to know what others think about these things.

Peace and thanks,

 

Birch Tree

Hiya BT,

 

Just a couple of points on semantics, they may seem moot points, but they do help to clarify understanding.

 

To think that "manifestations flow from the Tao" is perhaps not quite correct because it creates the mental division between Tao and things. The myriad things are Tao and Tao is the myriad things. In Taoist parlance, all things by nature are ever-changing and the way in which they change is referred to as Tao. They take form because of the universal nature of Tao, and transform because of the universal nature of Tao.

 

With this in our awareness then being attached to a transitory form is delusional, thus impartiality, dispassion and, yes, non-attachment are essential virtues if one is to remain in harmony with Tao.

 

In terms of "karma", from my training and study, Taoists have what can be coined The Law of Universal Energy Response, which basically states that our life experience is a perfect match of our internal energy vibration. Thus the energy formation of our minds will attract a matching external manifestation; if we contain negative thoughts and beliefs then we will have negative experiences. We have to keep in mind here though that we don't just have individual "karma", because families, communities, and nations, also being entities in their own rights, will also have "karmic effects".

 

In terms of rebirth, I have always found contemplating compost to be a revealing guide.

 

[3bob]

Hello Birch Tree,

Your respectful inquiry is refreshing...

 

A warning from Buddhism about itself, so to speak:

The Vajrachedikā Prajñāpāramitā sūtra advises:

 

You should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities. This is the reason why the Tathāgata always teaches this saying: My teaching of the Dharma is to be likened unto a raft. Even the teaching of the Buddha must be relinquished; how much more so non-Dharma.

 

(The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā sūtra, Chapter 67,7

 

Therefore, The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā sūtra warns that we should not attach to even the sermon that Buddha himself preached as the Absolute Truth. In Buddhism, it is said that obsession with Dharma is one of the sufferings that should be discarded along with obsession with oneself. If it is believed that truth has substance, this idea can cause obsession with one's own creed, resulting in conflicts of hatred and contradiction. The Majjhima nikāya also emphasizes that the scriptural words are functional tools:

 

Does a man who has safely crossed a flood upon a raft continue his journey carrying that raft upon his head? So long as the mind is attached even to Buddha's teaching, as a basis, it will cherish the idea of 'I' and 'other'.

----------------------------------------------

 

Thus imo and at best we can properly use "rafts" but the rafts and what they do can never completely nail down that which they are not, although they are methods and guides towards same.

 

For myself (personally speaking) I find the Upanishads much less convoluted when pointing towards matters such as these, although I do appreciate teachings from other ways and schools.

 

Best wishes,

 

Om

Edited March 10, 2010 by 3bob

[Athanor]

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your explanation of selfish-selflessness--this helps a lot. If you don't mind my asking, do you suppose a person who makes offerings for the benefit of all sentient beings creates "good karma" (or gets rid of "bad karma") for themselves? If so, would this in turn give them a better chance at a favorable rebirth (or help them in some way toward enlightenment)? Also, I am wondering if such an offering would help others gain favorable rebirths (or help them toward enlightenment in some way)?

 

I am curious to know your thoughts on these matters.

Just to be honest, I am not a Buddhist or a 'true' taoist either, so my answer isn't necessarily the taoist perspective.

However, if you think about it, you will find the answer.

The concept of karma only has a meaning in regard to the afterlife and rebirth. This is the belief-part - whether you believe in it or not, it's your business. Yet, regarding this very life you're living now, karma is nothing more than things which you do, think or say. Now, the main principle is that good or bad isn't interesting in relation with karma. Enlightenment doesn't equal getting rid of negative karma - enlightenment is without any kind of karma. This means that doing things for the sake of a favorable rebirth is not better than doing things for a rebirth in the lower realms - at least in a karmic sense.

Whether your deed depletes your bad karma or accumulates good karma depends on the deed itself. When something is the result of bad karma, like long lasting or indigenous illnesses, then doing against these (like helping the sick) results in depleting bad karma. When you simply do good for the sake of good result, that creates good karma. However, the main thing should be getting rid of karma instead of accumulating good karma. Good karma can result in rebirth in a higher realm, but it will never lead you to enlightenment or full liberation.

 

Basically the whole thing is about experiencing anything life throws unto you, without avoiding or chasing any specific experience. This doesn't mean to stop thinking, it means not to cling on a past memory or a future dream. Focus on the present.

 

You know, in my opinion, the essence of Tao can be found in doing the Tao. While you do it, you don't talk about it. While you do it, you don't care about the result of it. Worrying about the result (or anything) is not the Tao. Doing the Tao - in my mind - means living the life as it is, i.e. not for the sake of something what is not, but for the sake of what is. If you do things for the sake of others, for the sake of good karma, for the sake of getting rid of bad karma, for the sake of enlightenment, for the sake of good rebirth, or for the sake of doing something, then you don't do the Tao. Then you're constantly connecting yourself with your past and future.

Well, "doing the Tao" might be kind of misleading composition but I think you know what I mean.

 

Oh yes, it's hard. But is worth too.

[ralis]

ralis:

 

Ok, I think I may have missed the point you were getting at but let me try again. I've thought about what you said and I am wondering if you were referring to a question of epistemology. I made the claim in my original post that empirically we can observe the "ten thousand things" and see that they are not permanent. But if I am reading what you are saying correctly, you are cautioning against leaning too hard on one's own empirical observations. However, your final line suggests that you also believe in the impermanence of the "ten thousand things" ("...the only absolute is change.").

 

 

Epistemological in terms of creating suppositions to form belief systems. Many proceed from the conclusion that if a teacher (Buddha or whomever) posits a supposition, therefor it is absolutely true. Why? Lack of critical thinking? Acceptance of the supposition in an altered state? Meditation can produce altered states in which one can easily change points of view that fit into whatever is said to be true.

 

In terms of one's own observations, it is very easy to take them too seriously, as well as taking others observations too seriously! Take for example, Gestalt Therapy, in which one hallucinates a parent or whomever in a chair and has a conversation for therapeutic purposes. Many have benefited from this work. However, if one delves too deeply, what are the ramifications? The same applies with any spiritual endeavor that if taken too far, can be a trap as opposed to freedom.

 

Of course, all things are not permanent! If it were not for change, the universe would not function. Dynamic systems exhibit change and all teachings that are supposed to benefit others, therefor, must change to fit the needs of the current time. If not then those teachings are nothing more than historical artifacts.

 

If all things are not permanent, then what creates the change?

 

ralis

[Athanor]

In terms of rebirth, I have always found contemplating compost to be a revealing guide.

Oh yes

Buddha taught about the 9 cemetery contemplations, those are quite disgusting, however, the purpose of that isn't about rebirth, rather to understand that the distracting beauty of the body is just an illusion I rather enjoy this illusion a little more and visit the cemetery later

I just remembered this from the compost

Edited March 10, 2010 by Athanor

[forestofclarity]

I consider myself a follower of the Buddha and the Tao, so I may have a unique set of answers.

 

1. I see no tension between Taoist thought and the three marks of existence according to Buddhism: everything changes, nothing satisfies, and everything lacks a self. You can find non-attachment in Taoism as well-- check out TTC 1. I do see pointed differences in Buddhism, but these strike me as more form over substance. Many (perhaps most) Buddhists and Taoists may argue on this point, however. Explore both and see for yourself!

 

2. Personally, I see Taoism and Buddhism working with or without rebirth. I have heard Taoist teachings of rebirth.

 

3. I do see a difference between working for oneself and for all sentient beings at one level. At a higher level, I see no difference. Theravada teachers have said that the best approach to save oneself first. On the other, I feel a certain power with the Bodhisattva vow to save all beings. Further down either path, though, these dualities tend to collapse.

 

The main difference I've seen/heard has to do with the cultivation of ming (body, life, etc.) and xing (essence, spirit, etc.). Taoists start with ming and then go to xing, whereas Buddhists tend to concentrate on xing.

 

 

 

* Edited for, and written in, E-Prime.

Edited March 11, 2010 by forestofemptiness

[3bob]

From what I've come across there seems to be key disagreements among various Buddhists, thus we apparently have the same types of problems, just in a differnt form from that know as "Buddhism" - as we have in other religions...

 

For instance:

" 'Buddha Nature' (the potential to be a Buddha) which is said to be present in all beings is known as the 'changeless nature' - (there's also a text by this name - The Mahayana Uttara Tantra Shastra

Here's a Zen example with calligraphy:

 

http://www.theartofcalligraphy.com/buddhanature.html

Edited March 11, 2010 by 3bob

[Gerard]

First of all, I have been thinking about the Buddhist idea of impermanence.

 

Are you the same as 25 years ago? Are your hair and skin complexion exactly the same? Is the current economic climate the same as 100 years ago? Do the still play at the movies Star Wars? Is the pet you had in your childhood still alive? Etc.

 

Suppose I just finished meditating and doing some mantras on my mala and I offer this up for the benefit of all sentient beings (which from what I can tell seems to be a fairly standard thing to do among Buddhists).

 

Quite clear in the Mahayana school of Buddhism (with the bodhisattva figure) but not so much in the Theravada school. Only a Buddha will really have those feelings strongly developed. Pratyeka Buddhas or lone Buddhas wouldn't interact with other humans and have those feelings either. Many hermits and lone mystics would belong to this last category. This is a very touchy and personal topic. I personally like to help other people but honestly never discuss spirituality with highly unawakened humans because it is a waste of time and energy. Their karma is not ready for that.

 

 

To me, in the end, there are no religions, only one goal: liberation from the bondage of karma/mind. There are many methods to attain this and they are all valid. I stick to the two methods that work for me best: Taoism (moving and static energetic practices, TCM & Feng Shui) and Buddhism (meditation and mind work). I stated this many times in this forum.

Edited March 11, 2010 by durkhrod chogori

[Marblehead]

Darn!!!

 

Stigweard got here before I did. There's nothing left for me to say.

 

(Besides, he said it better than I probably would have.)

 

Peace & Love!

[de_paradise]

I agree with Durkhrod's take on things.

 

To add about the "offerings to sentient beings", well that sounds pretty jargonistic. We are talking about doing good things in general, and in meditation we are re-creating the sympathetic kind of feeling you get when you do something for someone else or act not for your own benefit. It is that feeling that you want, because way under your conscious awareness, that feeling and little pictures in your mind is linking up with higher spiritual energies that help advance you, help transform you. Mahayana Buddhists have of course ritualized this, and then handed it down as a ritual. It is simply one way to make spiritual progress, and obviously not necessary. But if it works, why not do it? It is effective to be looking for the feeling-state in which you notice an energetic shift or blissy kind of shift in yourself: notice the kind of pictures you are making in your mind to represent all beings, notice the feeling as you think about offering and helping. I think just obeying the ritual "ok now I am offering this meditation to all sentient beings" is a bit cold and removed, good for first graders, but you can do better.

[Gerard]

Yes, I have found the Mahayana school rather "emotional." When I attend Vipassana retreats there are no rituals, there are no talks, only silence and individual meditation. I am not saying this ascetic method being the best and most authentic but hey it works great for me. I dislike rituals and adopting a poise; to me is another aspect of organised religion which I stay away from. In the end we are all alone, so who cares about what the rest do! One exception to it would be when people build up spiritual energy as they gather around specific locations. In this case you can benefit from it as I wrote recently on my site but the same can be said about practice at specific Earth power spots.

 

Anyway, each to their own.

Edited March 11, 2010 by durkhrod chogori

[rex]

Offering the benefit of practice to the welfare of all sentient beings works with the ideas of interdependence and karma to create the causes and conditions for universal happiness. In some belief systems there are forces working actively for universal peace, harmony and happiness and dedicating practice to something greater than oneself gives the potential for grace to flow more powerfully. [is this suitably E-Prime?]

[innerspace_cadet]

 

First of all, I have been thinking about the Buddhist idea of impermanence. I find this idea to be quite appealing as empirically it seems that all things in this world are indeed impermanent. Thus, severing attachment to these things also appears to be spiritually and psychologically beneficial. I like this idea quite a bit and I've been thinking about it from a Taoist point of view. From my own personal readings, it does not appear that this idea is inconsistent with Taoist precepts. The Tao is unknown to us, but the manifestations that flow from the Tao (the "ten thousand things") are temporary, are they not? If this is true, then does it not follow that Taoist would also find refuge in the severing of attachments to the "ten thousand things"?

 

Secondly, I am curious what some of my fellow Taoists think about karma and rebirth. Obviously these are central ideas in Buddhism, but I am curious to know what others think about these things.

 

 

Many religions teach the importance of not being attached to worldly things, not only Taoism and Buddhism but also Jainism, Hinduism and Christianity. I think non-attachment is a universal truth, but that doesn't make it any easier to practice, let alone fully realize. That is why the Buddha said that the greatest warrior conquers himself.

 

To answer your second question, I try not to "think" about rebirth and karma any more than what I "think" will happen in the next moment. What happens-or doesn't happen-after death will be as it is, regardless of my beliefs about it.

[ralis]

 

 

 

This is a very touchy and personal topic. I personally like to help other people but honestly never discuss spirituality with highly unawakened humans because it is a waste of time and energy. Their karma is not ready for that.

 

 

You really have an inflated view of yourself! It must be a thrill to be in your presence! The radiance from your eminence is just much more than I can stand! :lol:

 

 

ralis

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Ralis

Reality is whatever is experienced.

 

@ Birch

 

True compassion arises without a center. It shines effortlessly, it is a state of existence. Cultivating is not cultivating a unit of "self" in phenomena, it is cultivating total experience of reality which is you, it is cultivating being, like the flame turning into the sun and into a star, its radiance gives by simply being as is, sentient beings are led to enlightenment just by the presence of the master, and to him, all phenomena become spontaneously liberated, all extremes are instantaneously harmonized within the Tao,

 

everything rests in between the states of being and non-being: non-graspable, ever flowing, the bliss is continuous and accommodating to each and every guest who yearns for the light.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Gerard]

Cultivating is not cultivating a unit of "self" in phenomena, it is cultivating total experience of reality which is you, it is cultivating being, like the flame turning into the sun and into a star, its radiance gives by simply being as is, sentient beings are led to enlightenment just by the presence of the master, and to him, all phenomena become spontaneously liberated, all extremes are instantaneously harmonized within the Tao,

 

everything rests in between the states of being and non-being: non-graspable, ever flowing, the bliss is continuous and accommodating to each and every guest who yearns for the light.

 

Let me add something to that:

 

Whatever you will experience no one else will. It is a personal journey. That's why I feel it is a waste of time trying to explain this to anyone. The best way of helping is by giving the ones with good karma a pair of shoes and ask them to walk the path. From that very moment they will experience an array of phenomena and as a result understand what the teacher meant by walk and don't talk.

 

In my opinion excessive talk only leads to confusion and frustration.

[baiqi]

I didn't read all of the answers, so I just answer as if there was no answer at all, sorry if I repeat things that have been said.

 

First, I believe that buddhism and taoism in China have been together for such a long time that it is really hard to give a pure "taoist" or "buddhist" answer.

You may have answers between two different taoists schools more different than from a taoist and buddhist school...depending on which one you are talking about!

 

For exemple, some buddhists from the zen school will deny the very idea of reincarnation, whereas others will put it at the center of their teaching...

 

So I better give my own feeling on the questions

 

Impermanance is...undeniable to me. I don't see anything that lasts forever. Everything changes. You don't have to be from any religion/philosophy to see that, you just need to look around. Both taoism and buddhism agree with that I believe.

 

For karma, well, it is a little harder to be so categorical. However my own experiences shown me that it also existed: you pay for what you did, in "good" or "bad", although this goes far beyond classical morality...Really hard to explain.

 

For rebirth, well again, I have no doubt that there is always rebirth...but not necessarily yours.

 

Example: when plants die, they are absorbed by the earth (and other animals). Then the earth gives birth to other plants...So there is a cycle of death and rebirth, but the same plant is not going to be born again.

 

I think what is true with matter is the same with more subtle elements of the being. (mind, psyche, spirit and so on...)

 

Why try to help other sentient beings? Because imo everything is connected, so ... That doesn't mean you should suffer for the "good" of someone because you were told that this would be rewarded. This is okay for kids, not for mature beings.

 

hope I brought something sensible to these good questions!

[Birch Tree]

My friends, thank you for sharing your wisdom and insights with me. Forgive me if I do not offer a personal response to you, some of the posts have similar ideas that I will try to address.

 

Stigweard:

Good to hear from you again my friend. I am still benefiting from the wisdom you shared with me from the last thread that I started (several months ago now). Unfortunately, I still find myself falling into the old duality traps. I know that on some level there is no self and no distinction known as the individual, but I am unsure how strongly I believe this because in my own writing, words and actions, I still find myself making these distinctions. For me, this is certainly an area that I need to work on and when I read your posts they make so much sense to me--you have a gift for explaining difficult concepts such as these. If you have any ideas to help me diminish the duality of thinking in my own mind (eg. meditations or exercises that worked for you), I would be greatly appreciative.

 

Marblehead:

Good to hear from you again my friend. I hope that all is well with you.

 

Athanor:

Thanks for drawing the distinction between good and bad karma and the idea of getting rid of all karma. I have heard it both ways, but you have provided an excellent discussion of the difference between these and it is now much clearer to me why one might want to get rid of all karma altogether. Because of your unique perspective, I would like to ask whether or not you think the Taoist concept of "wu wei" is the same as what you are referring to when you say that you are living in the present?

 

forestofemptiness:

Thanks for your thoughts. I personally have heard Taoism with and without the idea of rebirth as well and was wondering what members of these boards think about the issue. My reading of the TTC also points to eliminating attachments but sometimes I get the impression that some Taoists become attached to certain types of energy work, Tai Chi, internal alchemy practices, etc. Of course many of these methods are worthwhile for mind/body/spirit development, but I suppose the lesson is that they are tools or "rafts" as 3bob stated.

 

3bob:

I appreciate the words of Buddhist caution. Is what you are referring to the practice or meditation of "killing the Buddha" (which I've heard about from Zen Buddhists)?

 

durkhrod chogori:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with your individualistic ideas regarding spiritual development. I've recently just finished Krishnamurti's "This Light in Oneself" and I completely agree that one's own spiritual and meditative experiences are individually experienced. However, in writing this, I realize that I may indeed be falling into a duality trap (the type that I talked about above in my response to Stigweard). Would you agree with this assessment? This is a struggle for me personally--how to maintain an individualist view of spirituality while at the same time realizing that all things are one in the Tao? Any insights you have on this would be greatly appreciated.

 

de_paradise:

I agree that the language "offerings for all sentient beings" does seem a bit stilted and pedestrian. I am wondering if you think a more emotional response would be appropriate? If so, do you think this would make it more difficult to avoid attachment? I am thinking that if I were to reflect on suffering around the world when making a sacrifice, I could certainly become more emotional, but might I also run the risk of becoming attached to the sacrifice itself?

Also, there is a chance that I could be completely missing the point of what you were saying--if that is the case I apologize and hope that you will clear things up for me.

 

innerspace_cadet:

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of other religions as well. I had never heard the phrase about the greatest warrior conquering oneself, but that makes a lot of senses.

 

Lucky7Strikes:

Thanks for clarifying this. I had never really considered this distinction as deeply as I should have. Cultivation practices that I have engaged in have always on some level been about cultivating the self--but as you point out this seems like a misplaced emphasis. Cultivation of being indeed seems to be cultivation without center.

 

baiqi:

Death and rebirth appear true and empirically this is the case. I am curious to know if you think the spirit (Shen as it is sometime called) continues after death?

 

Everyone:

My friends, thank you for sharing your wisdom and responses with a poor seeker like me. Your answers have been very helpful and give me much to think about.

 

With sincere thanks,

 

Birch Tree

[Lucky7Strikes]

Let me add something to that:

 

Whatever you will experience no one else will. It is a personal journey. That's why I feel it is a waste of time trying to explain this to anyone. The best way of helping is by giving the ones with good karma a pair of shoes and ask them to walk the path. From that very moment they will experience an array of phenomena and as a result understand what the teacher meant by walk and don't talk.

 

In my opinion excessive talk only leads to confusion and frustration.

 

Every journey is his own, yes, so why do you make the difference at all between walking and talking? Why do you feel like there is even a certified way of explaining things?

 

I don't think that it is a waste. You should just treat people as your nature is meant to do. Past karmic ties will simply play out, even if it means that anger or hate should arise (but now they wouldn't be anger or hate) and no new karma, good or bad, is created. It is, however, important to realize that this is a choice one's consciousness creation makes, that it is neither superior, godly, merging with the greater whatever, or even enlightenment. One simply chooses to live this way because well, you got tired of living the other way, which is that you grasp an identity or an ego and live in duality.

 

Sometimes when I read your posts I feel as if you have a condescending attitude towards those who are not on the "path" which I think (now, that may be your way of getting through some things and even effective at this point, so I am not at all telling you that it is wrong, but perhaps a hinderance to your larger goals) is a feeling that shouldn't even arise. As I noted before, if you are simply as you are, all phenomena that arises is spontaneously harmonized, whether it be someone of ignorance or enlightenment. One shouldn't attach values to either.

 

It's not that excessive talk leads to confusion and frustration, it's the attachment to the words and concepts that create further disharmony.