johndoe2012 Posted July 10, 2010 I am not certain if one obtains anything since one is already there and not separate from the Tao. ralis But isn't the Buddhist point of view that one could be fooled by one's own mind to think you "are there"? Therefore you need some kind of descriptions of the different stages - described by the mind so they will get polluted, but maybe it is better than nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 Can we go back to the original question (if it was one)? I enjoyed reading that. Thanks. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 The challenge lies in "seeing" 'these natural processes'. My eyes are only beginning to be unveiled... Excellent point. I know that sometimes when I present my thoughts in a thread it sounds like I am already at to point I am referring to. That is far from the truth. I too am still learning how to see. I found that my biggest problem is wanting these processes to be the way I think they should be. Of course, this is mainly because of my constantly relying on dualistic concepts in my life that has anything to do with externals. But hopefully we will all reach to point where, even if we don't understand everything we are comfortable with that. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 10, 2010 I have a naive question here. I am not a scholar or anything and don't know many texts, but doesn't the problem come from attachment to interpretation of experiences, and attachment to experiences themselves? I have a spiritual "view" given me by a tradition and I see all my spiritual experiences after the fact in that light. I could be attached to the experience itself, but I don't see that as much of a problem in the context of this thread. Isn't ascribing essence to anything an action by the mind after the fact? Then I think I know what essence is? Or is the cognition of essence in the experience? Or does the mind only think so after the fact? As I see it, the problem with perception is more about the evolution of language specific to a culture, the environment specific to that culture and the limitations of neurophysiology. Although, new research on neuroplasticity does show the brain is more flexible than previously thought. ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 The more important question is: how do one "obtain" the Tao? One can easily fool oneself in reading various taoist texts and think "now I've got it". The verification of one who has the Tao and the roadmap to the Tao seem the most difficult. And Ralis replied: I am not certain if one obtains anything since one is already there and not separate from the Tao. I will go one step further and suggest that we are Tao. At least an aspect of it. Now, the Way and Virtue (Te) is what we need to 'obtain' if it is thought that we have lost either. Yes, the Way is found through Virtue. Stig has written much concerning Virtue. I think that this should be where we place our majority of energy during self-cultivation. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 10, 2010 But isn't the Buddhist point of view that one could be fooled by one's own mind to think you "are there"? Therefore you need some kind of descriptions of the different stages - described by the mind so they will get polluted, but maybe it is better than nothing. All views (Buddhist etc.) are only views relative to that particular belief system. Cultural belief systems segregate and limit the adherents thereof, to the approved view. See Vajraji's incessant rants to see what I mean. The so called different stages could be nothing more than an individuals limited perception and therefor is not related to a cosmic or absolute view. The so called seer then preaches the veracity of a given experience. Why do humans accept these postulates? Mass hypnosis? ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C T Posted July 10, 2010 (edited) All views (Buddhist etc.) are only views relative to that particular belief system. Cultural belief systems segregate and limit the adherents thereof, to the approved view. See Vajraji's incessant rants to see what I mean. The so called different stages could be nothing more than an individuals limited perception and therefor is not related to a cosmic or absolute view. The so called seer then preaches the veracity of a given experience. Why do humans accept these postulates? Mass hypnosis? ralis These ideas you are putting forth here as counter-arguments are in themselves 'views' too, are they not? By arguing against, you are effectively aiming and trying to project an alternative set of views, or are you not? If so, what are some of your helpful proposals please? Its easy to disparage and criticise, but what is your back up philosophy Mr Ralis sir? If you do not have one, that makes you a foolish participant here (and there, and everywhere) - and if you do, then what sets it apart from the others that you are trying so overly hard to demean? Or are you simply showing off how smart you can be? If that is the case, ok, you are smart... happy? Edited July 10, 2010 by CowTao Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idquest Posted July 10, 2010 Is the human existence actually an attempt of Tao to come to self-realization? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 10, 2010 Is the human existence actually an attempt of Tao to come to self-realization? Self realization is good. However, figure out, how in the hell this human mess occurred! :lol: ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sunya Posted July 10, 2010 (edited) As I see it, the problem with perception is more about the evolution of language specific to a culture, the environment specific to that culture and the limitations of neurophysiology. Although, new research on neuroplasticity does show the brain is more flexible than previously thought. Your view is that thoughts/concepts are language and that when you transcend language, you experience things as they are. This is your view, relative to your experience. In time, your experience will deepen and you'll see that there is more to thoughts/concepts than language. Mind is a deep pool and concepts lie in the formless experience as well.. Very subtle concepts. Some belief systems work better than others. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Your belief that enlightenment is beyond causes and conditions leads you to think that belief systems don't matter. I'll trust the enlightened masters who have actually treaded the path and gave pointers along the way. You're like a person who stands on the bottom of a mountain, yelling at climbers and giving them advice. What good is your advice? Climb the mountain first. About the topic, I have no interest anymore in arguing which path is superior. I still don't agree that superiority is subjective, I do still think that you can say objectively that a certain path is better, much like you can objectively say which map is more accurate at getting a traveler to a destination, but I'd rather figure that out first through experience. Arguing with others seems like a complete waste of time now, and besides, whatever you guys are doing now could be perfect for what you need at the moment. So I'll repeat that whatever Vaj is doing is not indicative of how all Buddhists feel and act. His intention is the opposite, but I do agree that he might be doing more harm than good. Edited July 10, 2010 by mikaelz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 No, you are making it appear ambiguous by adding so much more to what I said. All I said is that there are natural processes in the universe (tzujan) and that all things and all non-things follow these natural processes. 'Natural processes' is not a thing; it is just the way it (the universe and all things and non-things) is. We can speak of all the different forms of energy all we want but even these energies function within their natural processes. We do not need magic to understand this. Just look out your window and you will see these processes in action. And they never fail us because the laws of physics (regardless of man's understanding of those laws) always apply. Peace & Love! Ok... very good. I just need some more defining context, that's all. No need to get your hair twisted. Just kidding Marblehead, you know I love ya! So basically, is Tao a phenomena, or just a word like cosmos is merely a word to say everything? Or is Tao a transcendent something that all things come from and return to? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 Is the human existence actually an attempt of Tao to come to self-realization? That is a fair question. I have a few times said something like 'the manifest universe is Tao expressing itself'. I truth, I think that this is an inaccurate view of my understanding of Tao. For 'self-realization' to happen there must be a self, Right? That would be a personification of Tao and that would be totally against the roots of my philosophy. So no, the human animal is just one species that has evolved from a common ancestor. We might end up being a mistake just like the dinosaurs were. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 And Ralis replied: I am not certain if one obtains anything since one is already there and not separate from the Tao. I will go one step further and suggest that we are Tao. At least an aspect of it. Now, the Way and Virtue (Te) is what we need to 'obtain' if it is thought that we have lost either. Yes, the Way is found through Virtue. Stig has written much concerning Virtue. I think that this should be where we place our majority of energy during self-cultivation. Peace & Love! So then the Tao is a transcendent Self of all? An all encompassing essential nature that is always? The unchanging principle behind change? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 On the other hand the Tao is talking about how ungraspable the essential nature of things is. This is why the texts often tells stories which turn everything we suppose to be true on its head and allow us to see everything in a new light - expressing Tao conforming to its own Nature. I would suggest that if you do that well enough you don't need dependent origination as an antidote or perhaps you will get it anyway without even trying too hard. So while I can see where you are coming from Stig I can't really agree with your interpretation. Much as I would like to. I think this is your Buddhist influenced mind talking though. It still seems as far as the Tao is talked about in various classical texts, that the Tao is an ontological essence of things, the oneness behind the maniness. The true and unchanging nature of all change. The transcendent non-thing that all things are in absolute and certain truth. This is not the insight of dependent origination. Then again... because at times the term Tao is contextualized differently, during these times I can see certain individual Taoists could possibly come to the same insight as a Buddha. When the Tao is merely a term that is used to describe the way things mutually flow interdependently since beginningless time. But when the Tao is said to be that which exists before time, before manifestation as a true and definite transcendent view, then there is the mistake of taking a meditative experience as an essential nature of everything. This again would not lead to genuine liberation, only altered states of bliss that may be prolonged through focus and integration. A worthy goal, but not the same as full awakening to the nature of things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 Ok... very good. I just need some more defining context, that's all. No need to get your hair twisted. Just kidding Marblehead, you know I love ya! So basically, is Tao a phenomena, or just a word like cosmos is merely a word to say everything? Or is Tao a transcendent something that all things come from and return to? That's okay. You know me - I am going to say what I think even if I end up being wrong, whatever that is. Hehehe. Your questions are valid here. Absolutely valid, I think. No, Tao is not a thing in its self. Yes, Tao is, in the noun form, a word similar to the word "cosmos". It is just a word that is used to say "all things and all non-things of the universe". However, when the word is used as a verb it is subject specific. That is, the Way is the way the universe and all things and all non-thing function. The Way suggests that there is a natural Way for all things and all non-things to function properly. That is why it is said that we can loose Tao (the Way), because we try to function outside our nature (tzujan). But yes too, we all come out of Tao and return to Tao. That is, we come out of everything (a singularity perhaps?) and return to everything at death. Good recycle program. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 That's okay. You know me - I am going to say what I think even if I end up being wrong, whatever that is. Hehehe. Your questions are valid here. Absolutely valid, I think. No, Tao is not a thing in its self. Yes, Tao is, in the noun form, a word similar to the word "cosmos". It is just a word that is used to say "all things and all non-things of the universe". However, when the word is used as a verb it is subject specific. That is, the Way is the way the universe and all things and all non-thing function. The Way suggests that there is a natural Way for all things and all non-things to function properly. That is why it is said that we can loose Tao (the Way), because we try to function outside our nature (tzujan). But yes too, we all come out of Tao and return to Tao. That is, we come out of everything (a singularity perhaps?) and return to everything at death. Good recycle program. Peace & Love! Hmn... interesting. I remember at times when I was a youngster that I really wanted to follow the Taoist tradition and not be so in a position where I was only influenced by the Hindu tradition. Not only because of the martial arts programs, but because of the philosophy seemed so much more practical in a sense. Sometimes, Taoism seems to be quite in line with what the Buddha said in the Atheistic sense. The Cosmos just moves in and out of states of repressed potential into expressed potential, over and over again due to mutual co-origination of all phenomena and not due to a prime mover or one that wills everything to be out of it's own being and desire. Mono-theism of any sort just doesn't seem to hit the nail on the head accurately enough. So, both Taoism and Buddhism stand apart from other traditions in this sense for me and don't make nearly as many emotional excuses for existence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 So then the Tao is a transcendent Self of all? An all encompassing essential nature that is always? The unchanging principle behind change? Wow! There you go again trying to personify (reify) Tao. That is a "no, no" in my book. Everything is always everything. That's all there is to it. Everything and the Way it works. However, there are natural laws. Change is the only absolute I know of in the universe. These changes are dictated by the laws of physics, tzujan. No, Tzujan is not a thing, Tzujan is a set of processes, some of which we understand and some we don't yet, and perhaps never will, understand. Questions like: What caused the big bang? and did anything exist before the most recent singularity? will probably never be satisfactorily answered but I assure you that there was some process that caused the big bang and in my logical brain there was something, perhaps another universe, prior to singularity. If we attempt to reify (personify) Tao we are going against the thought of not being able to define Tao. We can't really because Tao includes all non-things and to the best of my knowledge no one has found a way to define something that does not yet exist. We can talk about the manifest aspect of Tao (all that is, the entire cosmos) though. That is what we are doing here in most part. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 But yes too, we all come out of Tao and return to Tao. That is, we come out of everything (a singularity perhaps?) and return to everything at death. Good recycle program. Peace & Love! But still... freedom from this unconscious recycling is exactly what the Buddha taught. So it seems that there is a different goal between the two here? Taoism seems to be a path where one is following the way if there is open acceptance to this inevitable recycling, of which I can see the wisdom, but Buddhism looks to gain insight into going beyond the recycling program all together. This seems for me to be a loftier goal. Of course, your type of Taoism is not the same as Stig's where I think he believes in the immortals and the ascended masters of Taoist religious tradition. Where you are more of a "naturalist" in the material sense of the word. Your spirituality is within the range of your 5 senses... yes, no? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted July 10, 2010 But still... freedom from this unconscious recycling is exactly what the Buddha taught. So it seems that there is a different goal between the two here? Taoism seems to be a path where one is following the way if there is open acceptance to this inevitable recycling, of which I can see the wisdom, but Buddhism looks to gain insight into going beyond the recycling program all together. This seems for me to be a loftier goal. Of course, your type of Taoism is not the same as Stig's where I think he believes in the immortals and the ascended masters of Taoist religious tradition. Where you are more of a "naturalist" in the material sense of the word. Your spirituality is within the range of your 5 senses... yes, no? Your last sentence is more of a fishing expedition so you can undercut others beliefs. ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 Your last sentence is more of a fishing expedition so you can undercut others beliefs. ralis Wow... you are bitter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 Then again... because at times the term Tao is contextualized differently, during these times I can see certain individual Taoists could possibly come to the same insight as a Buddha. When the Tao is merely a term that is used to describe the way things mutually flow interdependently since beginningless time. But when the Tao is said to be that which exists before time, before manifestation as a true and definite transcendent view, then there is the mistake of taking a meditative experience as an essential nature of everything. This again would not lead to genuine liberation, only altered states of bliss that may be prolonged through focus and integration. A worthy goal, but not the same as full awakening to the nature of things. I will first apologize for responding to this as it was directed to Apepch7 but I did want to make comment. Yes, there are many Taoists who reify (personify) Tao. I think that this is an error. But that really doesn't matter because we all find our own way of understanding, just like we each must walk our own journey through life. Yes, Tao existed prior to time, prior to the manifestation of any 'things', prior to space/time. But we cannot look into the past prior to the big bang. We can assume a singularity. Beginningless time is an error of language, I think. We really do have a beginning of time for this cycle - the big bang. But, if we assume that there was something prior to the most recent singularity then yes, we could say beginningless time with breaks of time and no-time during the never-ending process. And then too, if we assume a condition of beginningless time we must also assume a condition of endless time (with breaks during the process). So Tao is eternal. No, I can't support that statement. Hehehe. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 Every religion or philsophical cosmogony has employed in some manner the concept of an eternal essence, whether they recognize it as such or not. Buddhism does not, and we recognize this fact. Other than that... I enjoyed some of your points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted July 10, 2010 I gotta break this into two different sections. Hehehe. But still... freedom from this unconscious recycling is exactly what the Buddha taught. So it seems that there is a different goal between the two here? Taoism seems to be a path where one is following the way if there is open acceptance to this inevitable recycling, of which I can see the wisdom, but Buddhism looks to gain insight into going beyond the recycling program all together. This seems for me to be a loftier goal. Yes, it is here that we find a difference between the goals of Buddhism and Taoism. We Taoists are totally happy going round and round. We see no problem with that because it is a natural process that we have observed throughout all other aspects of the universe. But then, where is one to go if one escapes the recycling? Is there a heaven similar to the Christian Heaven? Or do you simply no longer exist? That wouldn't be consistent with the thought that no energy of the universe is ever lost. Sure, going to Heaven and becoming into the form that we were at the peak of our life and haveing 47 virgins and some comely boys to play with is a lofty goal (if that is your thing, hehehe) but that just seems so vain to me. Of course, your type of Taoism is not the same as Stig's where I think he believes in the immortals and the ascended masters of Taoist religious tradition. Where you are more of a "naturalist" in the material sense of the word. Your spirituality is within the range of your 5 senses... yes, no? Yes, Stig is a religious Taoist and I respect that. But he can speak for himself very well so I will not go there. Yes, you can put the label of "naturalist" on me. No problem. And yes, my spirituality is pretty much linked with the observable universe. But I also like to link myself with the spirituality of the North American Natives. The Cherokee have a lot of beliefs that are consistent with my beliefs. Sure, they use different words to express the concepts and sure, they do personify many of the processes of nature but it is still the closest to Taoist Philosophy that I have read about. Sad that the North American Natives never developed a written language and we must rely on the stories and teachings that were hand down generation after generation. Peace & Love! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vajrahridaya Posted July 10, 2010 So Tao is eternal. No, I can't support that statement. Hehehe. Peace & Love! So, Tao merely as a process of all things is eternal? Ok. I can agree with that. By the way, scientists have found matter left over from the previous universe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites