Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[ralis]

Hi there Mr. should I say... conclusion jumper star?

 

I would like to state for the record, that I don't think every Taoist system is inferior, as I do think that some systems of Taoism do lead to the same enlightenment as the Buddha, but they are generally speaking, pretty hard to find and quite secret for the sake of posterity as most really deep Buddhist teachings and practices are as well. I do mostly think that plenty of peoples views of the Tao do lack insight and are not emptied enough of reifying or deifying interpretations, just like in some Buddhists about Buddhism.

 

Yes, the TTC is quite ambiguous, so is up for so many interpretations... which a lot of people like and yes, every reading evolves with you. I don't find all interpretations to be up to par in my experienced opinion and that's all I state, for the most part. I have stated many times before that I do feel that some views on the Tao could pass Buddha-rific inspection. Now, I don't think anyone should take any of my opinions personally, unless of course I do strike a cord of personal resonance, then I think it's time to look in the mirror.

 

Buddhism on the other hand does have a clear lineage of interpretation, but on another spoke of the wheel of confusion, I don't think that every lineage within Buddhism does speak as clearly or procure the methodology leading to ultimate clarity with succinct ability as some others. Now, I'm sure you could say the same about the many, many Taoist lineages. Am I right or wrong? I'm quite sure there are some Taoist lineages or teachers that you would not agree with.

 

Of course, on yet another hand, everyone needs whatever they need in order to evolve as everyone does evolve as is the way of the Tao, even if they have to take many steps back first in order to re-learn or clarify some lessons. I for one use the I-Ching quite regularly through coin throwing in order to help clarify my path. I interpret the terms through my understanding of what the Buddha said. If that is wrong to you, you can go sit in the corner with your judgment and suffer yourself, or just get over the fact that I am a follower of "Awake-ism", which is translated in Sanskrit as Buddhism.

 

For me, Buddhism is not a religion but the way of seeing and methodology that leads to liberated vision. Plenty of paths employ one Buddha method or another as Buddhas, or "awake beings" if you please, do influence so many beings on so many levels as that is part of the path. Buddhas help others and influence as deeply as possible on levels while alive and even after physical falling away into the so called "spirit" realms. So, if some of your traditions' Taoist Immortals have the same level of enlightenment as Buddhist Immortals, you can bet that they're swapping information on higher levels of being than most people can assess.

 

So, let's let bygones be bygones, not bigots and let's not take anyone's opinion with so much spite and bitterness... eh? Can we not get along, even if we do not agree? Why let an adverse view turn into a spit fest? You and plenty of others here need to get a grip on what the inner cause of your tension truly is.

 

Also for the record. Yes, I am a fundamentalist! I want to know the fundamentals of how the cosmos works directly, through both methods of spiritual practice, philosophy which goes along with method and psychology. I do find fault in some views on things and I state that. I am aloud to disagree and state why. I am also aloud to ask for a deeper clarification of terms from peoples own perspectives.

 

I do not agree that the Tao is an ontological essence. Is that not ok?

 

 

Again you state tenets without proof, just personal opinion. For example, saying only certain aspects of Taoism are equated with enlightened Buddhism. Again you use Buddhism as a metric to compare and contrast Taoism with Buddhism. You are nothing more than a reactionary (fundamentalist) to your past conditioning and seek to dominate others with your point of view.

 

Fundamentalist's are reactionaries and fanatics and that is how you come across. Not as one who is interested and curious about life.

 

 

ralis

Edited July 14, 2010 by ralis

[Marblehead]

Again you state tenets without proof, just personal opinion. For example, saying only certain aspects of Taoism are equated with enlightened Buddhism. Again you use Buddhism as a metric to compare and contrast Taoism with Buddhism. You are nothing more than a reactionary (fundamentalist) to your past conditioning and seek to dominate others with your point of view.

 

Fundamentalist's are reactionaries and fanatics and that is how you come across. Not as one who is interested and curious about life.

 

ralis

 

Hehehe. Sadly, I oftentimes must agree with you on this. VJ just hasn't figured out how to say "in my opinion" yet. But we have to give him time, afterall, he is just a beginner to Taoism.

 

But Taoism is still the word for the day, yesterday, and tomorrow. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Tao is what is is and no words can change that.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Hehehe. Sadly, I oftentimes must agree with you on this. VJ just hasn't figured out how to say "in my opinion" yet. But we have to give him time, afterall, he is just a beginner to Taoism.

 

But Taoism is still the word for the day, yesterday, and tomorrow. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Tao is what is is and no words can change that.

 

Peace & Love!

 

In my first philosophy class as a college freshman, I wrote my first paper on Kant. I made the mistake of stating untenable absolutes. There were red marks all over my paper. I can still see those red marks. Vajraji doesn't yet realize that my remarks are red marks.

 

 

ralis

[Birch]

----cheering section in----

 

Neat posts all. How unfortunate we have to resort to words to evaluate/create "systems"

 

-----cheering section out-----

[ralis]

----cheering section in----

 

Neat posts all. How unfortunate we have to resort to words to evaluate/create "systems"

 

-----cheering section out-----

 

Exactly! The cosmos can never be quantified semantically.

 

ralis

[Brian]

...

[ralis]

The sophomoric philosopher's trap is to become fixated upon the words themselves. This is also a device relied upon by lawyers...

 

Excellent point!

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

In my first philosophy class as a college freshman, I wrote my first paper on Kant. I made the mistake of stating untenable absolutes. There were red marks all over my paper. I can still see those red marks. Vajraji doesn't yet realize that my remarks are red marks.

 

 

ralis

 

ralis,

 

It is you who are fixated and can't see past his assumptions. You are still too young in spirituality to see this fact.

[Vajrahridaya]

----cheering section in----

 

Neat posts all. How unfortunate we have to resort to words to evaluate/create "systems"

 

-----cheering section out-----

 

What else does one hope to use in a place where only words can be used for communication? Why not celebrate their wonder and beauty and realize the meaning they are pointing to from within?

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. Sadly, I oftentimes must agree with you on this. VJ just hasn't figured out how to say "in my opinion" yet. But we have to give him time, afterall, he is just a beginner to Taoism.

 

But Taoism is still the word for the day, yesterday, and tomorrow. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks, Tao is what is is and no words can change that.

 

Peace & Love!

 

I say in my experience quite often Marblehead.

[ralis]

ralis,

 

It is you who are fixated and can't see past his assumptions. You are still too young in spirituality to see this fact.

 

Whose assumptions? Too young in spiritually? Exactly what criteria do you base that nonsense on?

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly! The cosmos can never be quantified semantically.

 

ralis

 

You take up the lack of concepts as ultimate nature, therefore you fall into the trap of an extreme.

 

The cosmos is infinite semantics and emptiness, both, not one transcending the other, but in balance. Form is emptiness and emptiness is nothing other then form.

[C T]

Whose assumptions? Too young in spiritually? Exactly what criteria do you base that nonsense on?

 

 

ralis

Based on the fact you have not progressed on since getting all those red marks four score and twenty years ago...

 

(Just kidding R!)

[Vajrahridaya]

Whose assumptions? Too young in spiritually? Exactly what criteria do you base that nonsense on?

 

 

ralis

 

Your replies and constant accusations coming from a platform deep within you of mis-understanding and mis-reading. You constantly come at me from the limitations of your inner experience. This is the criteria from which I base this relative truth upon.

[ralis]

You take up the lack of concepts as ultimate nature, therefore you fall into the trap of an extreme.

 

The cosmos is infinite semantics and emptiness, both, not one transcending the other, but in balance. Form is emptiness and emptiness is nothing other then form.

 

Then if you are so knowledgeable, then describe the cosmos in a precise absolute manner. No Buddha terms allowed!

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Then if you are so knowledgeable, then describe the cosmos in a precise absolute manner. No Buddha terms allowed!

 

ralis

 

See, you have a bitter view, stemming from your karmic experiences associated with religion in general, and your perception of terms is limited by these inner dogmas of yours, based upon these choking and contracting feelings. This is all your own karmic baggage at work. This dis-allows you to access the meaning of certain formats of information that utilize terms within wisdom traditions. Basically, you see Buddhist terms and your defense mechanisms go up on such a fast level from within, that you react instead of actually reading or even attempting to understand the meaning being pointed to.

 

Since I learned to express my experiences and insights using terms associated with the Buddhist and Indian traditions in general, this will be the language I will tend to use very naturally.

 

You dance around like a blind man offended by what you cannot even see.

[ralis]

See, you have a bitter view, stemming from your karmic experiences associated with religion in general, and your perception of terms is limited by these inner dogmas of yours, based upon these choking and contracting feelings. This is all your own karmic baggage at work. This dis-allows you to access the meaning of certain formats of information that utilize terms within wisdom traditions. Basically, you see Buddhist terms and your defense mechanisms go up on such a fast level from within, that you react instead of actually reading or even attempting to understand the meaning being pointed to.

 

Since I learned to express my experiences and insights using terms associated with the Buddhist and Indian traditions in general, this will be the language I will tend to use very naturally.

 

You dance around like a blind man offended by what you cannot even see.

 

 

Actually, I am not as limited as you erroneously believe. My point is to drop the religious nonsense and directly experience the cosmos, without religious trappings!

 

 

ralis

Edited July 14, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, I am not as limited as you erroneously believe. My point is to drop the religious nonsense and directly experience the cosmos, without religious trappings!

 

 

ralis

 

Then go for it and leave me alone. I am a part of this cosmos and if you don't like my posts and have to say how much you hate them each and every time they appear, how is this revealing your freedom from religious trappings? It seems that you are trapped by your emotional reaction to religious terms.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Then go for it and leave me alone. I am a part of this cosmos and if you don't like my posts and have to say how much you hate them each and every time they appear, how is this revealing your freedom from religious trappings? It seems that you are trapped by your emotional reaction to religious terms.

 

I have never used hateful terms toward you or anyone else on this forum.

 

 

ralis

[Apech]

Could it be that this once lofty and interesting thread has descended into everyone pointing out each others shortcomings. Leave me out because the list would be very long.

 

I was thinking about this:

 

9

 

Better to stop short than fill to the brim.

Oversharpen the blade, and the edge will soon blunt.

Amass a store of gold and jade, and no one can protect it.

Claim wealth and titles, and disaster will follow.

Retire when the work is done.

This is the way of heaven.

 

Hope you get my drift.

 

As Marbles would say - Peace and Love!

[ralis]

Based on the fact you have not progressed on since getting all those red marks four score and twenty years ago...

 

(Just kidding R!)

 

Actually I got an A for the course work.

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Could it be that this once lofty and interesting thread has descended into everyone pointing out each others shortcomings. Leave me out because the list would be very long.

 

Yeah, and what's worse is that I have to read all these posts just in case someone says something I need to respond to.

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

So.. the Circus Ship was sailing off the coast of an island inhabited by cannibals when it ran aground.. later, as two cannibals were simmering a clown, one tastes the broth and asks the other, "Hey!, does this taste funny to you"?

 

Be well..

[ralis]

Greetings..

 

So.. the Circus Ship was sailing off the coast of an island inhabited by cannibals when it ran aground.. later, as two cannibals were simmering a clown, one tastes the broth and asks the other, "Hey!, does this taste funny to you"?

 

Be well..

 

:lol:

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The Course, Plilosophy 101.. the year 1968.. the first assignment: After calling roll and a few housekeeping comments, the professor sat down and just watched us watching him.. after a time, maybe 10 minutes (it was the '60s, time was really relative), he asked what was in the bottle on his filing cabinet.. there was an unopened Pepsi bottle on the cabinet, so we answered Pepsi.. then, he rotated the bottle 180 degrees and it said Coca-Cola.. so, a few people said a dark liquid, so.. he opened the bottle and poured out a clear liquid, the dark color was painted inside the bottle.. then, he said: "Come back to class on Wednesday with one type-written page on how you, personally, determine what is true".. that was one of the most difficult papers i've ever written, given his demonstration of what we 'assume'.. the rest of that semester was spent on 'Truth'..

 

Be well..