Stilling the mind

[nac]

V: Are you really trying to convert everyone to Buddhism?

 

BTW, is that Taoist text which claims that Laotzu left for India and took birth as Sakyamuni Buddha, but Indians misunderstood his teaching and ended up creating Buddhism included in the Daozang? Instruction of the Barbarians or something, can't remember what it was called.

 

PS. I think it's called Conversion of the Barbarians.

Edited June 18, 2010 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

V: Are you really trying to convert everyone to Buddhism?

 

Not in the sense of a Christian trying to save souls from Eternal damnation. It's more for me about debating and learning. But, what others get from it is up to them.

 

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

It's more for me about debating and learning.

 

 

 

:lol: :lol:

[nac]

It's more for me about debating and learning. But, what others get from it is up to them.

I mean, you're engaging in intellectually honest debate, right? You're not merely pushing doctrine from Buddhist texts or repeating yourself ad nauseam?

[Vajrahridaya]

I mean, you're engaging in intellectually honest debate, right? You're not merely pushing doctrine from Buddhist texts or repeating yourself ad nauseam?

 

Check my history.

[nac]

By the way, does anyone know why people think Buddhism wants to form a monopoly? Buddhism didn't try and wipe out all other religions in any of the countries where it established itself. Despite Tibet's evil reputation, there were nevertheless four mosques within the city of Lhasa during the age of ghettos and pogroms in Europe, catering to hundreds of Muslim residents.

 

Do you think some Buddhists influenced by evangelical Christianity or something really do try to convert anyone and everyone in sight? I have never seen Buddhists giving out fliers in the streets. In fact, I've heard Jews say that they vehemently oppose messianic Judaism, but don't mind Jewish Buddhists because while Christians actively evangelize near synagogues and spend thousands of dollars trying to convert Jews, people become Jewbus of their own accord.

[nac]

Check my history.

I can't remember seeing you do anything like that, not even when you used to spam every thread. I remember you saying that Taoism handles the Eastern metaphysical question in a particularly elegant way, by apotheosizing the quality of DO-ness and change as the absolute Tao. Well, if this isn't just stigma from back then, then perhaps people have abandoned their rational minds in favor of aesthetics. It "feels right" that you're out to convert people because Taoism is a more fun religion than Buddhism, so why would anyone choose Buddhism over Taoism?

 

I suck at conspiracy theories.

Edited June 18, 2010 by nac

[nac]

You did, however, write a very silly article about Einstein's spirituality.

[Vajrahridaya]

I can't remember seeing you do anything like that, not even when you used to spam every thread. I remember you saying that Taoism handles the Eastern metaphysical question in a particularly elegant way, by apotheosizing the quality of DO-ness and change as the absolute Tao. Well, if this isn't just stigma from back then, then perhaps people have abandoned their rational minds in favor of aesthetics. It "feels right" that you're out to convert people because Taoism is a more fun religion than Buddhism, so why would anyone choose Buddhism over Taoism?

 

I suck at conspiracy theories.

[Vajrahridaya]

You did, however, write a very silly article about Einstein's spirituality.

 

I didn't write that. That was someone else. I re-quoted Einstein when he called Buddhism the religion of the future about 1 year ago or more.

 

That article that ralis or whoever linked was not mine. Thank you very much.

[nac]

I didn't write that. That was someone else. I re-quoted Einstein when he called Buddhism the religion of the future about 1 year ago or more.

 

That article that ralis or whoever linked was not mine. Thank you very much.

Thank god!

 

Einstein was a horny bastard.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thank god!

 

Einstein was a horny bastard.

 

Being horny is not anti-spiritual... LOL! Neither is being a Bastard, as it's not his fault if he didn't have a father. I think Einstein's main reasons for being as intensely curious as he was, were spiritual in essence. As in... merely trying to fulfill his longing to "know" and "understand" as directly as he knew how; through the dualistic tools of science.

[C T]

Resting in a state beyond extremes, one sees stillness in movement, and movement in stillness. Unaffected by neither, flow is acknowledged. For this recognition to arise in the being, no stressful effort is needed. One is not required to achieve any particular state through performing any sets of particular actions, or thinking in certain specific ways, or needing to activate anything, or receiving any kind of transmissions. However, this also doesn't mean one does nothing at all or simply blank the mind, which only bring about laziness and stupor.

 

Chasing one state while avoiding the other are actions in futility, for all things are known to the wise as ephemeral, like a mirage, a rainbow, or a trail of smoke seen from afar... the further one is, the more unchangingly still the smoke appears. The closer one gets, the more frenetic the movements appear, both of the smoke and of the mind, for then other things begin to factor in, like maybe its a massive fire, if so, what kind of fire is it, could there be someone trapped nearby, will i dial the Emergency line, and so on and so forth. Then when one arrives at the source of the activity itself, maybe its just a burning pile of damp grass, and when the wind blows the smoke directly into one's face, one sees there is nothing there to grasp - only an empty, harmless billow of smoke. The struggling tend to cease immediately thereupon. Imagine the potential angst prior to recognizing the source of the 'disturbance' for what it really is.

 

There is a reminder in the sutras that we ought not to mistake a rope for a snake. This is very true.

 

The perception of stillness, Isness, and all other kinds of busi-ness, is likely dependent on the distance from which one sees oneself. But when things are really seen for what they are, ideally in the absence of any external or internal interference like time, space, and unnecessary thinking, for example, this often puts an end for the need to either move or still the mind, for both are fundamentally dualistic extremes, and thus unsatisfactory. In order to perceive things directly, one of the most effective methods could be this: Just stop trying to grasp at, or avoid whatever arises in the mind's eye, for all things that come up to awareness will also subside back into the groundless but cognizant void of consciousness on their own accord, in direct alignment with the force behind the perception, until the next set of infinite combinations of thoughts and sense-perceptions again enable their recollection, whereby they remanifest, albeit this time round already transformed and transmutated with many other thought seeds in the interim, and so it goes on and on like this.

 

Hence the Tatagatha observed, "Men are accustomed to state 'Is' or 'Is not', but for him who perceives wisely and according to the truth how all things are brought about in the world, for such a one there is no 'Is not'. And for him who perceives wisely and in truth, seeing how things of the world perish, for such a one there is no 'Is'. 'Everything Is' is one of the extremes - 'Nothing Is' is the other... I teach between the two, the truth of Interdependent Originations."

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Hence the Tatagatha observed, "Men are accustomed to state 'Is' or 'Is not', but for him who perceives wisely and according to the truth how all things are brought about in the world, for such a one there is no 'Is not'. And for him who perceives wisely and in truth, seeing how things of the world perish, for such a one there is no 'Is'. 'Everything Is' is one of the extremes - 'Nothing Is' is the other... I teach between the two, the truth of Interdependent Originations."

 

Brilliant work CowTao!

 

This is why when one falls into this idea that... "Everything is" truly "this" or "that". No matter how transcendent this "that" is. It's still an extreme and one does not realize the true nature of things and how things revolve. Though error on the side of Eternalism is generally more helpful than Nihilism as Eternalism generally leads to higher rebirth and Nihilism generally leads to lower rebirth. This is why Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism and other such paths, even though they don't teach the middle way beyond extremes are generally better than completely misunderstanding life and falling into animal or demonic realms.

[TzuJanLi]

[C T]

Greetings..

 

No offense but somehow i always find your retorts and rhetoric rather hypocritical and lacking. Here for example - you are formulating and putting into words what you yourself preach against doing. Personally i could not find anything original from it. One can walk into any respectable, and semi-respectable bookshop and find, with relative ease, the minimum of a shelf or two of books with contents that would kind of skip over the same rope as what you so proudly repeated here, and in color too! My my, you must be feeling chuffed with yourself Mr Tzu. If you are such an 'Is' guy, at least try to stay truer to your beliefs and be more original, instead of putting yourself across as some New Agey super-duper cool dude who is over and above all the older, mainstream traditions just because the names happen to contain the letters ISM at the end.

 

Perhaps you ought to bring your brilliant philosophical mind to spread some authenticity in the other threads and teach some of the eager folks out there how not to fall for all the promises of instant, blissful transformations offered by the thousands of systems available out there, most of which, as always, also lack originality, and fearing for a lack in substance, latch on to the coat-tails of more exotic, ancient, proven spiritual traditions, creating some kind of mutant strain of disguised spirituality in the process. You might be delighted to know that many of these schools of New Thought are also enthusiastic supporters of your brand of philosophy. This must make you very proud indeed.

 

Turning a blind eye to a very real crises that many are experiencing as a result of mixing and matching from borrowed traditions, with many under the 'trance' that more means faster 'enlightenment' or whatever term they want to delude themselves with, these professional salespeople with their glib tongues and quick wit continually capitalise on the current trend, and constantly churn up more and more sophisticated 'systems' and more advanced levels, trying to keep things new and fresh, thus ensuring a larger percentage of repeat business from the 'regulars' without having to dish out too much on marketing and PR - after all, nothing will close a sale surer and faster than personal testimonials and past-participant referrals, right? These are the real culprits out there, who have absolutely no qualms in squeezing people's hard-earned money in return for sharing 'proven systems' that promises to be cutting-edge stuff, but at the end of the day, under scrutiny, the students/suckers will still have to exert the personal effort, and in some cases, even more so than before the bloody 'system' was paid for and taken on board. And then some of these brilliant minds have the cheek to say, oh, its a process of co-creation between the student and the transmitter that ensures the success of whatever (transmissions i assume) - if its such a mutual thing, maybe those that call themselves transmitters ought to pay the receivers heh? After all, without the receivers, the circle cannot be completed, they brazenly announce, with hardly a twitch in them poker faces of theirs.

 

Clearly there is trouble on deck, and too many 'sailors' are being drafted day after day, most of whom are fresh from college, running around pretending they are all captains of their own destiny after a short stint as 'deckhands'. This is a real problem, and could do with megadoses of your Most unsurpassed connection with Clarity. I would LOVE to see your righteous (and what you yourself deem the correct) wake-up call directed at these organizations and individuals instead. Go tell them everything is clear, everything "IS", and all will be well. Then when your energy is all expanded in doing this useful task, and the frustrations begin to subside as a result, you may once again become true to your words that you have great respect for your Buddhist 'brothers and sisters here on TTB'. (Talk is cheap, as they say).

 

Wish you luck in your impending tirade, in response, which i await in awe. RSVP

 

(having said all this, i take my hat off to you for your martial arts knowledge and years of training experience. the fun thing about it is you have disregarded the implications that traditional forms of MA, which i am assuming you practice, are, in essence, also another form of -Ism. Have you ever considered bringing your unique Clarity into that world, and initiate some kind of a westernized reform there, no? I am sure these established systems could also greatly benefit from your untainted insights)

 

Greetings refunded.

Edited June 18, 2010 by CowTao

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: So, as you mindlessly recite the Buddha's mad ramblings, you also find fault in others not reciting your preferred 'words'..? Well, your rambling accusations lack any substance as an intelligible reply, more the whining of poutish child..

 

You imply the words i posted: "are formulating and putting into words what you yourself preach against doing.".. in which case you simply lack the capacity to understand anything i have posted, and more particularly, 'me'.. so nuzzle-up next to your precious Buddha, and suffer your self-imposed ignorance in fitting silence, the whining is just annoying..

 

Be well..

[C T]

Greetings..

 

Hi CowTao: So, as you mindlessly recite the Buddha's mad ramblings, you also find fault in others not reciting your preferred 'words'..? Well, your rambling accusations lack any substance as an intelligible reply, more the whining of poutish child..

 

You imply the words i posted: "are formulating and putting into words what you yourself preach against doing.".. in which case you simply lack the capacity to understand anything i have posted, and more particularly, 'me'.. so nuzzle-up next to your precious Buddha, and suffer your self-imposed ignorance in fitting silence, the whining is just annoying..

 

Be well..

Understand what you post? You must be kidding right? Your experiences are only relevant to your little self, in your little coconut shell you call your world, and i see no reason why any person with a grain of sensibility would want to join you in that stuffy, cramped and murky-ish environment. No thanks.

 

As for what you perceive to be my rambling accusations, well, at the very least i dont, by way of 'coloring' my words, imply that they are highly significant.

 

IF i want to brush up on the subject of the Is-ness of things, there are volumes upon volumes of material out there available for perusal, written with more sense, dignity, taste, and respect for others. Now what makes you think your observation is so extra-original and philosophically sound (by posting in a different shade, you obviously feel its super-duper deep and infused with timeless wisdom eh?) that it warrants any reflection and serious introspection?

 

Whatever colored glasses you are wearing, if i were you, i'd want to quickly remove them, in the event you become overly accustomed to the shade, and become so fixated in your own bias with which you view others as inauthentic and lacking in substance. Who knows, you might fancy wearing them so much that by now you have already forgotten you have them on. Just dont look in the mirror, in case you might get a sudden fright from not being able to immediately recognise the image staring back at you.

Edited June 18, 2010 by CowTao

[Raymond Wolter]

Cow Tao and other Buddhists,

 

What really are you guys trying to say? Taoist views are incorrect, incomplete and mainly physical or mental impermanent bliss etc.?

 

 

Whatever colored glasses you are wearing, if i were you, i'd want to quickly remove them, in the event you become overly accustomed to the shade, and become so fixated in your own bias with which you view others as inauthentic and lacking in substance. Who knows, you might fancy wearing them so much that by now you have already forgotten you have them on. Just dont look in the mirror, in case you might get a sudden fright from not being able to immediately recognise the image staring back at you.

 

One is wearing Buddhist glass and the other Taoist. One has Buddhist bias and the other Taoist. And both have a problem with the other's bias? Wouldn't one be liberated if he were free of all conditioning? What are we accusing others of when we wear all kinds of conditioning ourselves? Where is all that compassion which Buddhists talk of but never display?

 

Considering this is a Taoist forum, what is the objective of your Buddhist posts which always seem to criticize the Universal One or Tao or whatever. Is your stand that Taoism itself is flawed and so is the concept of Tao or the interpretation of Tao is flawed?

 

And you guys understand that all this is according to Buddhism right? So I fail to understand what the purpose of these discussions are? You know every religion has its own stuff and also what its adherent thinks as genuine experience. Someone experiences a Universal Self and someone else sees a no-self. So what are the Buddhists on this board trying to do?

 

Correct the flawed views? Is everyone supposed to agree on this or that or something else? People make points, state their views and move on. But why do the Buddhists feel a definite need to convince others of their view? Try telling what Buddha said, and those who listen and benefit shall. But what's the point in attacking every view that you don't agree with?

 

Tzu does not seem to be attacking anyone here or being impossible. He has his views and you don't agree with his. So move on for heaven's sake. Why talk of his martial arts, attachment to bliss, trance states etc.? May be liberation from suffering is not everyone's goal? Let each choose his own bidding please! This forum has started to remind me increasingly of E-sangha where every Buddhist wants to play the teacher of another and correct or teach him. And he does not fail to assert that his views are objective, open-minded, rational failing to notice that the same is what the other guy thinks too.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

It is my deep and abiding understanding, not a 'fixed' understanding, however, that 'Truth' wears no robes.. that 'truth' favors no beliefs, and is more profoundly simple than any 'path' or 'ism' can express.. immediately upon hearing or reading something that says 'this is what 'Truth' is', i am cautiously skeptical.. i am much more receptive to the references that 'offer' accounts of experiences that have afforded the experiencer insights and understandings consistent with "The Way" things 'are', and the nature of that 'Way'..

 

I find that no 'ism's adequately or accurately express even the most simple 'direct experiences' with Life.. not Buddhism, not Taoism, not any religion or philosophy.. i find Taoism to be the most sincere and authentic in so much as it inspires the seeker to find their own understandings through their own direct experiences.. i have great respect for the Buddha's accomplishments in having his own direct experiences.. and i 'listen' to 'his' understandings, but.. as the bumper-sticker so well-expresses, "Dear God: Please save me from your followers", substitute "God" with 'Buddha' or any other deity or guru.. the real teachers empower people to find their own 'way', not empty imitation of the ways of others..

 

There is not a Buddhist 'Truth' or a Taoist 'Truth'.. there is only 'Truth', and.. YOU are That 'Truth'..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

Cow Tao and other Buddhists,

 

What really are you guys trying to say? Taoist views are incorrect, incomplete and mainly physical or mental impermanent bliss etc.?

 

 

Yes, mainly. Though there is no Taoist view really that is universal as there is no one source for the tradition. It's quite a scattered tradition with all sorts of lineages coming up with different views and interpretations.

 

All of Buddhism, even if different on the surface is qualified by certain universal marks known as the 4 marks.

 

One is wearing Buddhist glass and the other Taoist. One has Buddhist bias and the other Taoist. And both have a problem with the other's bias? Wouldn't one be liberated if he were free of all conditioning?

 

What we are saying is that Buddhism leads to freedom from conditioning while utilizing conditions for the benefit of all. Most paths fall into an extreme of Eternalism mistaking a formless samadhi "condition" as an ultimate truth of things. Calling this concept-less state of being by many names and making it an ultimate Self or true transcendent nature of things. This is considered an erroneous view and a very common mistake of most all traditions that work in a top down kind of metaphysics. The Buddha spoke up against this in order to help people. Most traditions think of the universe as coming from a truly existing transcendent "it" or "that" of some sort... calling it formless, beyond change, beyond concepts but facilitating change and all concepts at the same time... etc. This is considered an erroneous view and the extreme of Eternalism.

 

I don't pretend to be a Buddha, but I'm here to clarify my view, understanding and challenge my own sense of ego grasping. It's fun to write as well. I like it!

 

What are we accusing others of when we wear all kinds of conditioning ourselves? Where is all that compassion which Buddhists talk of but never display?

 

I'm here to work out my conditions. Learn how to express. I try to bring about the sense of compassion. It may not always be apparent, but challenging other peoples views on a forum where you can't see people directly seems a little impersonal, so it's difficult to tell who's feeling compassion or not.

 

Considering this is a Taoist forum, what is the objective of your Buddhist posts which always seem to criticize the Universal One or Tao or whatever. Is your stand that Taoism itself is flawed and so is the concept of Tao or the interpretation of Tao is flawed?

 

I find that the interpretation of the Tao which Lau Tzu talks about in the TTC is flawed. He calls it a nameless source of things, the mother of things, the beginner... etc. So basically he's talking about a top down metaphysics where all things come from one truly existing thing that shines from it's own side. So, this does not stand up to what the Buddha taught.

 

There are other interpretations of the Tao by Zen teachers that I can agree with. Tao just means "the way" which can be loosely translated as "Dharma" in sanskrit as well.

 

And you guys understand that all this is according to Buddhism right? So I fail to understand what the purpose of these discussions are? You know every religion has its own stuff and also what its adherent thinks as genuine experience. Someone experiences a Universal Self and someone else sees a no-self. So what are the Buddhists on this board trying to do?

 

It's not that the experiences aren't valid. It's just how the experience is interpreted internally which can lead to further bondage or just fuel to go deeper. Like Muhammed for instance had a vision in a cave, and interpreted that vision as the end all be all so went out and started conquering people in the name of this "vision" he had in a cave. Of course if he was guided by a Buddhist teacher, he would have seen through this vision and gone deeper and maybe came out of the cave a more compassionate being instead of deluded by this vision of an Asura. More here on the 31 planes of existence and how they correspond to different states of absorption in strictly meditative paths that do not have the "right view" as the Buddha taught.

 

Correct the flawed views? Is everyone supposed to agree on this or that or something else? People make points, state their views and move on. But why do the Buddhists feel a definite need to convince others of their view? Try telling what Buddha said, and those who listen and benefit shall. But what's the point in attacking every view that you don't agree with?

 

We don't attack every view. I don't at least. I only enter debates that pull me. You can take it or leave it. You can engage or enrage or move on yourself.

 

Tzu does not seem to be attacking anyone here or being impossible.

 

Are you reading the same posts? He constantly attacks the Buddha and us Buddhists at almost every turn. Even somewhat personally.

 

This is a place to discuss everything. Where views can be challenged and our state of equilibrium is put under fire. There is also sometimes the sense of camaraderie.

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

It is my deep and abiding understanding, not a 'fixed' understanding, however, that 'Truth' wears no robes.. that 'truth' favors no beliefs, and is more profoundly simple than any 'path' or 'ism' can express.. immediately upon hearing or reading something that says 'this is what 'Truth' is', i am cautiously skeptical.. i am much more receptive to the references that 'offer' accounts of experiences that have afforded the experiencer insights and understandings consistent with "The Way" things 'are', and the nature of that 'Way'..

 

There is no absolute Truth in Buddhist interpretation of the universe. Thus Buddhism stands different from all other traditions.

 

I find that no 'ism's adequately or accurately express even the most simple 'direct experiences' with Life.. not Buddhism, not Taoism, not any religion or philosophy.. i find Taoism to be the most sincere and authentic in so much as it inspires the seeker to find their own understandings through their own direct experiences.. i have great respect for the Buddha's accomplishments in having his own direct experiences.. and i 'listen' to 'his' understandings, but.. as the bumper-sticker so well-expresses, "Dear God: Please save me from your followers", substitute "God" with 'Buddha' or any other deity or guru.. the real teachers empower people to find their own 'way', not empty imitation of the ways of others..

 

There is not a Buddhist 'Truth' or a Taoist 'Truth'.. there is only 'Truth', and.. YOU are That 'Truth'..

 

Be well..

 

The Buddha is the only one that really taught a tradition of methodology and contemplation that leads to the same realization. All other paths are muddled.

 

The Buddha did in fact teach Buddhism on all it's levels. Hinayana and Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Dzogchen. The Buddha was very systematic, though deeply abstract as well. He was very clear and did nothing but teach for 40 years, then also after leaving the body as well.

 

You have yet to understand what the Buddha spoke so your ideas about Buddhism are based upon a lack of understanding so do not hold up to scrutiny.

 

This idea of YOU are That or a Truth that exists absolutely and universally from it's own side... etc. This is the faulty perspective that the Buddha cuts through with no-self and inter-dependent origination/emptiness.

 

This makes the Buddhas teachings different from what generally comes natural to most people, which is just different levels of Samsara. Samsara is a deep net and it's very difficult to get free from, because there are all sorts of pleasurable, peaceful and blissful pitfalls and most traditions are stuck at one or another of these pitfalls. Why? Because it's "natural".

 

So, Buddhism in a sense does transcend what is natural.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

So, Buddhism in a sense does transcend what is natural.

So, what exactly, was the flavor of that Kool-ade? Grape, Cherry?.. Oh, Hell NO, it can only be "Buddhist".. how very unfortunate, for you.. not about the Kool-ade, that was your choice, too bad.. but about the assuming that "I" haven't researched and practiced enough Buddhism to experience its self-imposed limitations, and Universal misunderstandings..

The Buddha is the only one that really taught a tradition of methodology and contemplation that leads to the same realization. All other paths are muddled.

Buddha created a prison, and you have locked yourself in..

 

Be well..

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Debating the guy is futile. It's really refined Buddhist twerpitude, and there is no self awareness in this individual. He does like to come in and dust it up with various unfortunates who challenge his views on his Dzogchen path as the ne plus ultra of the spiritual world. Very tiresome, so I like to point out his repetitive narcissistic blather whenever possible. I think he's got me blocked, so he won't even get to read this...he he...

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited June 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya