Certain instances of Buddhist harping...

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Yes, Taoism leads to good places, but it doesn't uphold the viewless view. Everyone has their capacity.

 

What the hell does that mean? Taoism doesn't uphold the "viewless view"?? Who cares? I wish we were all concerned with becoming better human beings instead of the (usually narcissistic) drive to "become a Buddha"?

Edited July 9, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[C T]

I think it's true that when I suffer, there is a path; when I don't, there isn't. For me the main significance of the teachings is that knowledge plays a role in freedom. DO is really a part of that, useful sometimes for that, and there is nothing that has significance outside of its relationship to each other thing, without exception. How's that.

That, my friend, is very very well said...

[C T]

What the hell does that mean? Taoism doesn't uphold the "viewless view"?? Who cares? I wish we were all concerned with becoming better human beings instead of the (usually narcissistic) drive to "become a Buddha"?

Mr Songs...

 

If you take away the religious connotation and yukkiness, to 'become a buddha' is indeed worth striving for as an ideal to becoming a better human being, for it simply implies to become awakened, which, i am guessing, is the noble aim of many who visit or reside here on TTB.

 

Buddhas are everywhere - the thing is, as one becomes more awakened or enlightened, its not so much that one sees oneself becoming more like a buddha, but to see how others, thru their frailties and imperfections, presents one with ample opportunities to reveal one's own good heart by lending them a hand, an encouraging smile, a thoughtful and kind word perhaps... so its more like these people who crosses one's path that are buddhas, and less so we ourselves. Interdependent origination perhaps? Who can say for sure...

 

Your friend,

mr cow

[Vajrahridaya]

What the hell does that mean? Taoism doesn't uphold the "viewless view"?? Who cares? I wish we were all concerned with becoming better human beings instead of the (usually narcissistic) drive to "become a Buddha"?

 

Suffering and attachment is a very deep affliction and is the cause of all the worlds problems. When one says that I only see the path when I am suffering and not when I am not, that means that the potential for suffering is still there. Only dependent origination/emptiness sees the cause and the effect as inherently empty. All other paths see something there, some inherent "that" or "this" that is beyond concept as the supreme cause of all things, even if blissful for a time being is not the experience of emptiness and it's illumination through recognition which is really free from this potential for future suffering. Dependent origination is not concerned with comfort zones, or passing spaces of happiness that are dependent upon this or that condition. Only emptiness through the teachings of what the Buddha said which did not appear before him in this eon lead to complete emptiness of the possibility of future suffering, in this lifetime or many more to come.

 

The dilemma is deeper than your argument with me not appealing to your comfort zones.

 

I don't care much to appeal to your comfort zones because they are the cause of your suffering. So the more I push your buttons, the more opportunities you have to look at yourself and realize the inner causes of your suffering and see how much more dependent upon inner conditions they are than the outer condition of my appearance in your field of perception.

 

Get a view... the view-less view, without cause and without effect... without any inherent being what so ever.

[Vajrahridaya]

This statement proves what Songs was just talking about! Another not so subtle put down of Taoism.

 

 

ralis

 

I'm not putting down the people who identify with being Taoist. I'm just saying that as it appears conceptually and methodologically, is not a complete path to the end of the "suffering" which afflicts the majority of this cosmos. Generally speaking the Taoist goal merely leads to higher rebirths. This truth you can understand directly through realizing exactly what the Buddha taught. As he said... "How would I teach this... it's so profound that most people will just not understand." Due to craving for one level of supreme existence or another.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[contrivedname!]

 

Buddhas are everywhere - the thing is, as one becomes more awakened or enlightened, its not so much that one sees oneself becoming more like a buddha, but to see how others, thru their frailties and imperfections, presents one with ample opportunities to reveal one's own good heart by lending them a hand, an encouraging smile, a thoughtful and kind word perhaps... so its more like these people who crosses one's path that are buddhas, and less so we ourselves. Interdependent origination perhaps? Who can say for sure...

 

 

That is a wonderful statement cow. this reminds me of a saying attributed to bodhidharma "Ordinary mortals are the teachers of buddhas; buddhas are the teachers of ordinary mortals" or something to that effect. "where ever you go, there's a buddha" says the same thing.

 

further along those lines you can precieve the strengths and wisdom that others have developed through their life experience in learning to deal with their own frailties and imperfections and be instructed thereby. they lean on you, you lean on them.

 

Why did a novice monk take his seat by buddha?

 

 

 

Vajra - Just a bit more: if someone is very 'attached' to their own path or if someone finds compassionate action through another teaching, might it be possible, if they take your words to heart, that you have just compounded their suffering or opened a door to it where none may have been before?

 

i dont see why you insist that one path is the highest catch-all realization for everyone. What if someone was brought up in a buddhist paradigm and they have formed all sorts of attachments and fixations based on this? Would another dose of buddhism necessarily be the right thing for them?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

 

Vajra - Just a bit more: if someone is very 'attached' to their own path or if someone finds compassionate action through another teaching, might it be possible, if they take your words to heart, that you have just compounded their suffering or opened a door to it where none may have been before?

 

i dont see why you insist that one path is the highest catch-all realization for everyone. What if someone was brought up in a buddhist paradigm and they have formed all sorts of attachments and fixations based on this? Would another dose of buddhism necessarily be the right thing for them?

 

Everyone has their own path to Buddhadharma, even if it's the path of rejecting their own subjective concept of Buddhadharma first, even if for many lifetimes before truly coming to Buddhadharma (Buddha=Awake and Dharma=Path or "the way" or "rule".

 

So... coming to the path that see's the way to awakening as the rule of liberation is variable for each and every person also sees dependent origination, as awakening is dependent upon the wisdom of emptiness not identity with an ultimate entity. Thus... Buddha can never be equated with idolatry.

[3bob]

I've been short on time and want to say thanks for the replies people sent to me earlier in this string... I can't exactly see going back to earlier in this string since there have been so many posts, thus for now I'd like to jump back in here and make the comment that no matter how great the teachings, including imo any form of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. (none of which I'm not an expert on) still have to be set down after they have served their purpose as a "raft"; thus for anyone to say that their raft is better than another's raft is missing the mark and also not properly using what may be a well intended and designed raft.

 

Btw, I believe that the Dalai Lama said something along the lines of, "we do not want you to up and change your religion" while visiting and speaking in the predominantly Mormon area of SLC.

Edited July 9, 2010 by 3bob

[Brian]

...

[anatman]

I've been short on time and want to say thanks for the replies people sent to me earlier in this string... I can't exactly see going back to earlier in this string since there have been so many posts, thus for now I'd like to jump back in here and make the comment that no matter how great the teachings, including imo any form of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. (none of which I'm not an expert on) still have to be set down after they have served their purpose as a "raft"; thus for anyone to say that their raft is better than another's raft is missing the mark and also not properly using what may be a well intended and designed raft.

 

Btw, I believe that the Dalai Lama said something along the lines of, "we do not want you to up and change your religion" while visiting and speaking in the predominantly Mormon area of SLC.

 

he is said to have said"do not use what you learn about buddhism to become a buddhist,use what you learn to become a better what ever you already are".where he is supposed to have said it,i do not know.

 

i also enjoyed your bruce lee reference.once we reach the"other side"we no longer need the raft.

[Birch]

"Generally speaking the Taoist goal merely leads to higher rebirths"

 

- Which, IMO you can achieve while still "in this life" and therefore become somewhat more of a helpful person.

 

"Pushing people's buttons" isn't always going to do them a favour, and indeed if you want to change the world (which you sound like you want to do through telling us about Buddhism) then there are ways to do it that are a lot less confrontational.

 

People with an already high-level of practice might appreciate the button pushing, but I suggest they're already using their real lives (by which I mean offline, I told you I was old school;-)) to do so. Life does that to a person...

 

I suggest you have to take people "where they're at" individually and of course on an online forum that is extremely hard, because you can't know where everyone is at just based on a few comments (or many, depending on the people). So a "one discourse fits all" - is unlikely to be successful in this environment. I'm not faulting you for trying to change the world, I think a lot of people on here are, just trying to point out that there could be other ways of getting there.

[ralis]

I'm not putting down the people who identify with being Taoist. I'm just saying that as it appears conceptually and methodologically, is not a complete path to the end of the "suffering" which afflicts the majority of this cosmos. Generally speaking the Taoist goal merely leads to higher rebirths. This truth you can understand directly through realizing exactly what the Buddha taught. As he said... "How would I teach this... it's so profound that most people will just not understand." Due to craving for one level of supreme existence or another.

 

Actually you are! You always cite your belief system as the most complete, subtle, profound etc. while Taoism is not complete.

 

Buddhism never saved the world, or any ism!

 

 

ralis

[adept]

Actually you are! You always cite your belief system as the most complete, subtle, profound etc. while Taoism is not complete.

 

Buddhism never saved the world, or any ism!

 

 

ralis

 

Well said ralis. This guy won't listen to any of us so why don't we just ignore him. He ruins every thread he visits with his fundamentalist preaching. Page after page of ego driven comments.

Like I said in a previous post, he has a 'superiority' complex.

[ravenscroft]

that is conducive to an end of suffering.

 

 

just curious but one thing I never understood about zen is this

 

what is wrong with suffering?

[Apech]

just curious but one thing I never understood about zen is this

 

what is wrong with suffering?

 

it's unnecessary.

[3bob]

Does a seed suffer when it changes into a sprout and then from a sprout and there on for each change...?

 

Thus some type of what could more or less be called suffering is necessary or takes place as related to such changes; further - what does not change does not suffer.

 

Om

[Sunya]

just curious but one thing I never understood about zen is this

 

what is wrong with suffering?

 

Seriously?

[Tao99]

Edited July 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Starjumper]

just curious but one thing I never understood about zen is this

 

what is wrong with suffering?

 

There's nothing wrong with suffering, it's the troll's attitude towards suffering that is wrong. Low level morons don't realize that if they end suffering they must also end joy, and yet they parade the lifeless way as superior.

 

Ref - The three vinegar tasters.

[Sunya]

So, why can he not bring his argument here and stop putting all other ways down? He is dismissive of other ways, and always self-references to the Buddha's way is the superior over all others, because the Buddha says it is. He is completely dense and tone-deaf about his self-admited 'preaching' here, ralis and I are far from the only people here who find it tiresome and offensive that no path is as good as his (even lesser forms of Buddhism). I see him talk very talk of compassion, social activism or engagement, only that he is going to be a Buddha someday. How will this help the world? He knows a lot, but he is unable to hold back on the put-downs of other ways. Others have pointed this out more than a few times, why can he not present his views and experiences and stop comparing it as superior to other ways constantly?

 

OK, we get it that he had some transcendent experiences at age 14, and that he has had meditations where he has "apprehended the truth" (his actual words), so whatever he says can not be contradicted because he owns the Truth. It is just so tiresome, we just get tired of the broken record. In his preaching this way, he comes across as a fundamentalist...come on, the 'faith' argument is specious mikaelz. It's his whole zeal, and the fact that he debates us to death with the same heavy Dzogchen party-line hammer.

 

OK, can you actually address the above, without coming back at me with how flawed I am, and how I "follow him around" (I don't. Please go to my profile and look up my posts and topics. 98% have nothing to do with him). Vajra, here's a dare, if you will: can you educate us about Buddhism without telling us of it's superiority to other ways, maybe try it for a month? Can you do it? If you can't, ask yourself, why not?

 

 

I don't think you're flawed Songs, I've seen you contribute a lot around here in the past year or so..

 

Anyway, Vaj is an interesting person. I've known him for years and I generally I agree with his view, but I don't agree with his way of action, especially on this board, and we've butted heads about that many times I don't think it's skillful to argue incessantly and aggressively with people because, assuming that Vaj does have the truth, that could only push people FURTHER away.

 

Now, bout the whole truth business, yes Vaj is zealous but he is not anymore fundamentalist than any of you. His views are rooted in the study of texts and experiential experience, just like you I'm sure. So it's an opposition of views. His view is that emptiness transcends the nondual realization afforded through other paths. Your view is that all paths lead to the same realization. The latter view is what's "PC" these days. We want to believe that all cultures have the same value, therefore all religions have the same value. It's not "cool" to say that one is better than the other. Is the Western european civilization more evolved than the ones present in Middle east at the moment? I would say yes, their systems are centuries behind the West, but try saying that in public and see the response you get. What about religion? Well I'm sure many here will agree that Taoism, Vedanta, and Buddhism are more evolved than Catholicism and Islam, which are not mystical paths at all and cannot lead to the same place. Is it wrong to say that Taoism is a superior path to Catholicism?

 

All his zealotry side, Vaj is pointing out something interesting. We're all very attached to this concept of equality, this flat-landing, which is really just a political thing and isn't rooted in facts.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with suffering, it's the troll's attitude towards suffering that is wrong. Low level morons don't realize that if they end suffering they must also end joy, and yet they parade the lifeless way as superior.

 

Ref - The three vinegar tasters.

 

Three vinegar tasters = not a good representation.

 

If you think that the end of suffering is the end of joy, you obviously never met a Buddhist teacher. Look up Dalai Lama on youtube and look how joyous he is. The end of suffering brings tremendous joy, but this joy is not conditional and temporary so it is not the same as the worldly happiness you're referring to. This joy is a joy of release, the joy of freedom.

Edited July 9, 2010 by mikaelz

[Starjumper]

Three vinegar tasters = not a good representation.

 

If you think that the end of suffering is the end of joy, you obviously never met a Buddhist teacher. Look up Dalai Lama on youtube and look how joyous he is. The end of suffering brings tremendous joy, but this joy is not conditional and temporary so it is not the same as the worldly happiness you're referring to. This joy is a joy of release, the joy of freedom.

 

He puts on a good act, good for him. So, you are saying he has no attachments? Don't be a fool.

 

Maybe If you're lucky I'll explain my previous post in some detail - later.

[Starjumper]

Also, bringing up Dolly in the context of this discussion, even if the point was correct, is way dumb for several reasons. See if you can figure one or two of them out.

 

If you think that the end of suffering is the end of joy, you obviously never met a Buddhist teacher.

 

If you think you know what you're talking about you obviously never met a sage.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Raymond Wolter]

Look at what the Dalai Lama says. Where is the harmony and peace he exhibits in inter-religious dialog among his supposed "followers" here? Most posts made by Buddhists like Vajra here are more on the lines of "your view is flawed, you are incapable of right view, your path is incomplete" etc. Instead, it can be: "Here is what Buddhism is about, here is what the Siddhartha taught, here is what Dzogchen offers". Those with discerning wisdom and inclination will accept and study. The way Buddhism is presented here is extremely repulsive and there can be much better ways of doing that. Just to quote an example, CowTao keeps harping about how people here are "allergic" to Buddhism. It is not that people are "allergic" to Buddhism, some, like myself, are certainly to the way Buddhism is pushed and peddled around here. And folks like Mr. Cow take up cudgels when Vajra is criticized but lack the bones to point out that his ways are devoid of anything faintly skillful in preaching dharma. Any criticism of Vajra's ways and his supporters assume those to be against buddha dharma or lack of objectivity or clinging to belief systems etc. That lack of objectivity is what leads to attitude like Cow's - "Oh I follow Buddhism and agree with its views, Vajra is Buddhist, so I need to side him in every matter for by doing that I reaffirm my own faith in Buddhism". Cow is just an example and mean no offense here but Buddhists here forget to realize that Vajra's brand of Buddhism is not the only one or representing anything ideal.

I am a Buddhist myself and here to study and understand Taoism. Though topics related to Buddhism and Hinduism etc are allowed here, why would I want to come to a Taoist forum and keep talking about Buddhism endlessly, point out flaws of Taoism, and parrot dependent origination to the point of nausea? A Buddhist topic once in a while is okay but what are Cow and Vajra and the likes doing here if they know it all and are interested in Buddhism alone and have concluded other views to be flawed? Its like abusing the courteous nature of the host and stamping him all over simply because he is nice no? If Buddhism is all they are interested in, would not it make more sense to be on a Buddhist forum? I have never seen them ask questions but only offer advice or correct the rest or preach. So with that kind of attitude, how can there be a genuine exchange of information?

I am grateful for all your insights Vajrahridaya, and for the constant reminders to maintain right view. Inspiring, to say the least. I can see your sincerity, and the fact that there are no motives behind your words other than being a vehicle to carry the words of the Tathagata is truly admirable.

Unlike me, you are a true ambassador of buddhadharma, a fact recognisable thru your deep, spontaneous understanding and expression of the teachings. May your progress be swift, and your path free from obstacles.

May all beings develop right view, and be free from the causes of ignorance and deep sorrows.
May all beings enjoy the fruits thereof.

_/\_

I've known him for years and I generally I agree with his view, but I don't agree with his way of action, especially on this board, and we've butted heads about that many times I don't think it's skillful to argue incessantly and aggressively with people because, assuming that Vaj does have the truth, that could only push people FURTHER away.

And THIS hits the nail in contrast to the other merit badge handed over to Vajra unconditionally as the TRUE Ambassador of Dharma on the big bad www. Edited July 9, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Sunya]

He puts on a good act, good for him. So, you are saying he has no attachments? Don't be a fool.

 

Maybe If you're lucky I'll explain my previous post in some detail - later.

 

I'm not very lucky, so please don't bother.

 

Yes once you have clear realization of your true nature, there is no need to have attachments. They simply go away. Once you recognize the sky-like nature of mind, why would you still grasp at the clouds?

[Starjumper]

I'm not very lucky, so please don't bother.

 

Yes once you have clear realization of your true nature, there is no need to have attachments. They simply go away. Once you recognize the sky-like nature of mind, why would you still grasp at the clouds?

 

You are full of it, and you are unlucky too, but I'll explain it later because some few other's here are lucky, and yet they already know, don't they. In the final analysis, you block headed Buddhist fools are shitting on this forum. If it was my forum I would ban you all.