Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Vajrahridaya]

Beings create their own material reality? That is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard.

 

 

ralis

 

Yes, we did. The discussion of how this occurs is in many Dzogchen texts, including the Kunjed Gyalpo or "All creating king". This is Buddhist cosmology 101.

 

This is what the Buddha taught, this is what is taught in Mahayana and this is what is taught in Dzogchen. You can also have direct experience of this fact through meditative insight.

 

Endless beings are the co-creators of the cosmos, not one being. We create the universe over and over again through our various attachments and cravings on all the different levels from higher heaven realms to lower suffering realms, as well as this dense 3 dimensional realm. We have done so through the energy of our samsaric minds, lifetime after lifetime from one dimension or another, both the beautiful and the ugly.

[ralis]

Buddhism is for people who can't handle reality.

 

Buddhists believe they have the means to escape the cosmos. Just another cop out!

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Buddhism is for people who can't handle reality.

 

Ouch!!!

 

Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

I think this is a common condition that besets most cosmogonies and/or philosophies (including "religions" and "natural philosophy").

 

I believe, for instance, that Moses, Gautama & Jesus (among many) each had a "Truth" experience which they found themselves unable to adequately convey and which subsequently became co-opted by men with less vision but more ambition.

 

This is actually not the case with the Buddha. His main disciples who were the heads of the counsels were Buddhas themselves. There are doctrinal differences and these differences are due to the fact that there are different approaches, 84,000 approaches.

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddhists believe they have the means to escape the cosmos. Just another cop out!

 

ralis

 

Not really escape the cosmos, but rather escape pralaya (big crunch of the lower dimensions). As a pureland, or a realm reflective of the compassionate intention of a Buddha is still part of cosmos, which just means everything, but it's not part of any suffering aspects that come and go.

[ralis]

From a Buddhist perspective, this is actually incorrect. We've talked about how and why as well. The Buddhist path does not stop at oneness saying this is the peak realization. In Buddhism as explained by Gotama, there is deeper to do, as this is only reaching the storehouse consciousness and not fully emptying the basis for re-emergence into ignorance.

 

Buddhas are not re-absorbed at the end of the universal expression during the big crunch or the pralaya. Those who stopped at formless oneness and attach the idealization of "the end all be all" to it, calling it "the unnameable source of existence"... are re-absorbed to be recycled.

 

In reading this argument, fear of being reabsorbed is the prime motivator that underlies Buddhism.

 

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Yes, we did. The discussion of how this occurs is in many Dzogchen texts, including the Kunjed Gyalpo or "All creating king". This is Buddhist cosmology 101.

 

This is what the Buddha taught, this is what is taught in Mahayana and this is what is taught in Dzogchen. You can also have direct experience of this fact through meditative insight.

 

Endless beings are the co-creators of the cosmos, not one being. We create the universe over and over again through our various attachments and cravings on all the different levels from higher heaven realms to lower suffering realms, as well as this dense 3 dimensional realm. We have done so through the energy of our samsaric minds, lifetime after lifetime from one dimension or another, both the beautiful and the ugly.

 

Getting pretty mystical there, aren't you?

 

But I will simply say that I disagee with this and leave it at that.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

The devout followers of both Moses & Jesus say something very similar, you know. Scientists fall victim to the same egoistic folly, BTW...

 

 

You are welcome to your opinion.

[Brian]

...

[Vajrahridaya]

In reading this argument, fear of being reabsorbed is the prime motivator that underlies Buddhism.

 

 

ralis

 

Not fear of being re-absorbed, but rather, knowledge of it's cause as ignorance.

 

The cause for re-absorption is ignorance of ones empty and thus free nature. When there is still a subtle clinging to existence, through whatever transcendent non-thing you want to call the "Self" of all, either personal or impersonal, there will be re-absorption.

 

This is why the teaching on Anatta (not-self) and emptiness as well as dependent origination is very, very important if you want to get liberated. This is where the Buddhist teachings deeply differ from any other tradition on Earth.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Not really escape the cosmos, but rather escape pralaya (big crunch of the lower dimensions). As a pureland, or a realm reflective of the compassionate intention of a Buddha is still part of cosmos, which just means everything, but it's not part of any suffering aspects that come and go.

 

Again, you are hedging your arguments. If someone proves your argument faulty, then you redefine your original argument so that you are always right.

 

ralis

[ralis]

There is enough to know directly what he was getting at through practice and meditation through the guidance of the teachings we do have. Which are a whole lot more clear and elaborate than we can say about Jesus or Lau Tzu.

 

One can believe anything to be absolutely real while in a trance!

 

http://www.willproject.org/wiki/Trance:_from_magic_to_technology

 

 

ralis

Edited July 11, 2010 by ralis

[Marblehead]

We are still talking about Taoism here, aren't we?

 

I like Taoist philosophy. And I enjoy discussing the concepts within the philosophy.

 

I really would rather not discuss or even read about Buddhism in a thread that was presented for the purpose of discussing Taoism.

 

So man follows earth,

Earth follows heaven,

Heaven follows Tao,

And Tao follows itself (its own nature).

 

I think that the first two lines are a given. Now, heaven, meaning the entire universe, is a describable thing. And we look at how the earth functions and we should be able to see the similarity in the function of earth and the other objects in the universe so I think there is no problem there.

 

Line three is a little more difficult because we have to define Tao, which, of course, regardless of who well we prepare our description it will always be lacking and incomplete. Afterall, it is said that the Tao that can be sopken is not the eternal Tao.

 

So here, I think, the best we can do is accept that there are processes that govern the functions of all objects in the universe. I think Science has a fairly good handle on most of these processes.

 

So, we will just accept the term "Tao" to specify all things and all non-thing of the universe.

 

Looking forward from the beginning of this (man) we see that man has given charteristics and these characteristics function within given processes. As does the earth and the universe. Should the last stage, Tao, be any different? I think not. Therefore Tao too follows its own nature.

 

Peace & Love!

[voidisyinyang]

One can believe anything to be absolutely real while in a trance!

 

http://www.willproject.org/wiki/Trance:_from_magic_to_technology

 

 

ralis

 

Buddha proved Richard Feynman's discovery that empty space is not empty

 

 

Because Buddha was "way cool."

[Vajrahridaya]

I agree! I made similar arguments last year and was only slammed by Vajraji et al. He and his kind are so thoroughly invested in "the right view", they are unable to apply critical thinking to their belief system.

 

Belief systems are security blankets!

 

ralis

It's actually through critical thinking backed by meditative experience that brought me to "right view" and Buddhism.

[ralis]

We are still talking about Taoism here, aren't we?

 

I like Taoist philosophy. And I enjoy discussing the concepts within the philosophy.

 

I really would rather not discuss or even read about Buddhism in a thread that was presented for the purpose of discussing Taoism.

 

So man follows earth,

Earth follows heaven,

Heaven follows Tao,

And Tao follows itself (its own nature).

 

 

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

I really appreciate the simplicity of this. Not to be analyzed mentally but experienced directly.

 

 

Thanks

[Starjumper]

There is enough to know directly what he was getting at through practice and meditation through the guidance of the teachings we do have. Which are a whole lot more clear and elaborate than we can say about Jesus or Lau Tzu.

Buddhas blabs are most elaborate because Buddha was the biggest blabbermouth to ever have an enlightenment experience, but it is not clear! It is nauseatingly repetitive, like you, and it contains untruths, like you.

 

In fact what Lao Tzu had to say has much more depth and it is quite clear to those who are more advanced than Buddhists such as yourself.

 

Concerning being more advanced, which our Buddhist ______ insists is his way, I insist my way is superior, and for evidence I have a statement from a mentor of mine, a Taoist immortal, who said that religion is for the spiritually handicapped, but Taoism is for those who only need an occasional reminder.

 

So Buddhism ---> spiritually handicapped, escape from reality, all life is suffering and to be avoided and escaped, a suicidal philosophy.

 

Taoism ---> for grownups only, take the good with the bad, enjoy the mystery, bliss and enlightenment, you may escape rebirth if you get that far, but can still interact with and enjoy life.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Vajrahridaya]

Again, you are hedging your arguments. If someone proves your argument faulty, then you redefine your original argument so that you are always right.

 

ralis

 

Ralis, you've never proved me wrong. Of course I restate my arguments leading to the same conclusion because if my previous wording is mis-understood, then the structure should be clarified.

 

Of course I think I'm right, just as you do. :lol:

[Vajrahridaya]

One can believe anything to be absolutely real while in a trance!

 

http://www.willproject.org/wiki/Trance:_from_magic_to_technology

 

 

ralis

 

Insight and trance are different. The results of trance prove dependent origination. That what you experience is determined by view, thus the viewless view of dependent origination is a paramount insight if it's deluding power is to be emptied. Thus flipping the bondage of dependent origination, into freedom from all extremes.

[Starjumper]

:lol:

Thank you for defecating once again on our Taoist forum in a thread about Taoism.

Edited July 11, 2010 by Starjumper7

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

So Buddhism ---> spiritually handicapped, escape from reality, all life is suffering and to be avoided and escaped, a suicidal philosophy.

 

 

Actually Buddhism doesn't teach this. Buddhism teaches that the misunderstanding of life is suffering. Samsara is basically just a mis-cognition of the nature of phenomena and Nirvana is just the correct cognition of phenomena. Nirvana is the extinction of craving, not suicide or obliteration from life. Neither is it an escape. Your view of Buddhism suffers from a lack of investigation into what it actually teaches. Making your points quite mute.

[Stigweard]

[Vajrahridaya]

Thank you for defecating once again on our Taoist forum in a thread about Taoism.

 

Look at the first post, this was originally posted as a discussion mentioning Buddhism. Why can't you guys just argue the points, the similarities and differences without taking personal offense?

 

You are stating the Taoist position, which is fine and I'm stating the Buddhist position in a thread opened up mentioning Buddhism to begin with. As the forum says, this is a place to discuss all spiritual traditions as well as Taoism.

 

There is no need for this type of angry banter. I can be quite nice and civil, even if I disagree. Why can't you?