Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Stigweard]

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?

I will use this to progress the discussion

 

Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

 

I initially said "Yes" to stimulate the discussion, and I thank all for getting stuck into it

 

But what this discussion has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.

 

On one hand then "Yes" Tao is an ontological essence because Tao, being the way in which nature patterns and expresses itself, exists as a universal principle or law "before" Heaven and Earth arose. And also, as the subtle universal law, Tao does meet Laozi's terms:

 

Ch 25

 

Before Heaven and Earth are born,

there is something formless

and complete in itself.

Impalpable and everlasting,

silent and undisturbed,

standing alone and unchanging,

it exercises itself gently,

and generates itself inexhaustively

in all dimensions.

 

But, on the other hand, "No" Tao is not an ontological essence because the subtle universal law is not a "thing" that in any way shape or form can be regarded as a concrete entity. We have also seen that Tao is not necessarily a point of origin with creation flowing out from there in conventional linear terms because the subtle law is ever present with Heaven, Earth, and Humanity ever evolving according to the harmonic nature of Tao.

 

Other important realizations made here is that the Shengren's path is one of being "free in Tao" in the sense of being "awake" to the "true" nature of Heaven, Earth, Humanity and Tao. Rather than causing needless suffering by living "out-of-phase" with Universal nature, the path of Tao is one of perpetual attunement to the natural emanations of life and, by doing so, live according to the essence of Universal reality.

[ralis]

I will use this to progress the discussion

 

Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

 

I initially said "Yes" to stimulate the discussion, and I thank all for getting stuck into it

 

But what this discussion has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.

 

On one hand then "Yes" Tao is an ontological essence because Tao, being the way in which nature patterns and expresses itself, exists as a universal principle or law "before" Heaven and Earth arose. And also, as the subtle universal law, Tao does meet Laozi's terms:

 

 

 

But, on the other hand, "No" Tao is not an ontological essence because the subtle universal law is not a "thing" that in any way shape or form can be regarded as a concrete entity. We have also seen that Tao is not necessarily a point of origin with creation flowing out from there in conventional linear terms because the subtle law is ever present with Heaven, Earth, and Humanity ever evolving according to the harmonic nature of Tao.

 

Other important realizations made here is that the Shengren's path is one of being "free in Tao" in the sense of being "awake" to the "true" nature of Heaven, Earth, Humanity and Tao. Rather than causing needless suffering by living "out-of-phase" with Universal nature, the path of Tao is one of perpetual attunement to the natural emanations of life and, by doing so, live according to the essence of Universal reality.

 

 

What you just stated is very difficult to add to. Thanks!

 

 

ralis

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

If we are pondering 'Tao' in least way, we are missing 'it' in the most 'way'.. Tao, was chosen in the native language, precisely to avoid such scholarly atrocity.. Tao means 'way', the way, as in the 'way' things are.. yes, precisely as in 'nature's way'..

 

Before 'Taoism' was an 'ism', there were those who 'lived the Way'.. they didn't consider themselves 'Taoists', others understood the clarity of their 'ways', and labeled them 'Taoists'..

 

I am constantly in awe of the ability to be surprised at every unfolding instant of Life, as if it were fresh, new, and something to be studied intensely, except.. something fresh, new, and exciting is already unfolding still.. each morning i open my eyes, the surprise of that miracle is simple cause for another day of total celebration with unconditional sincerity and a pure gusto for the stream of surprises each day reveals.. each time your lungs fill with air should be an intense and sacred event..

 

Worship nothing, yet maintain a sacred reverence for ALL things.. ALL things, great and small, desired or rejected, good or bad..

 

Be well..

[Vajrahridaya]

 

But what this discussion has yielded is the realization that, just as Laozi has written, it is impossible to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No" to this question.

 

 

Right, ungraspable! One could say that dependent origination is an ontological essence and that is merely for conversational reasons, but if you get into what dependent origination means, it's merely the way of movement, and thus there is no grasper, grasping, or grasped that can be pin pointed definitely as a self or Self of all. Thus the four fold negation of Nagarjuna states; The Buddha denied that we exist, denied that we do not exist, denied that we both exist and do not exist, and denied that we neither exist nor do not exist. This kind of answer is called the Fourfold Negation and becomes a fundamental Buddhist philosophical principle to deal with attempts to characterize Nirvân.a or ultimate reality: we cannot either affirm or deny anything about them. This is why in English the term "thusness" is utilized to describe the state of flexible awareness that in word formation, defines the state of Buddhahood or "awakeness".

 

Just as the Buddha said, "To see dependent origination, is to see the Dharma and to see the Dharma is to be liberated". Dharma merely means, "the way".

Edited July 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Right, ungraspable!

 

I have been stating that the cosmos is not quantifiable semantically. One can only make approximations. If that is true, any attempt to create a belief system i.e, religion, philosophy or whatever is dishonest and gives the adherents of, a false sense of security. Even if it is the religion of 'dependent origination'.

 

Honestly, I realized what 'dependent origination' was when I was a kid. Any 1st year physics student knows this.

 

 

ralis

Edited July 15, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I have been stating that the cosmos is not quantifiable semantically. One can only make approximations. If that is true, any attempt to create a belief system i.e, religion, philosophy or whatever is dishonest and gives the adherents of, a false sense of security. Even if it is the religion of 'dependent origination'.

 

Honestly, I realized what 'dependent origination' was when I was a kid. Any 1st year physics student knows this.

 

 

ralis

 

It's ramifications lead to understanding directly, infinite regress which is the realization of endless and infinite mindstreams as well, all empty of inherent existence and inter-dependently originated, endlessly. Not leading to a single all encompassing substratum, which is not what Rigpa means, or like concepts of God as a willful Alpha of everything, or an underlying essence that one must surrender to.

 

The religion of dependent origination is much subtler than you have yet to understand ralis. This is because you only have periphery experience and not in depth experience. I know this from your responses to me.

 

You also don't understand how we collectively as endless sentient beings and Buddhas are the prime movers and manipulators of experiential reality, even in matter without beginning, Buddhas from a liberated point of reference and Samsarins from a bound point of reference, thus we have endless dualisms. You say, "what? How can we be the cause of this material reality? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!" You say this because you have not delved deep enough into your own unconscious and uncovered your previous existences directly. Seeing your previous existences directly also see's others and how we've been playing endlessly and manipulating matter endlessly as beings of consciousness. Your periphery and merely intellectual comprehension that lacks direct experience of the profundity of the Buddhas teaching is plastered all over your reactions to my statements backed by sages far deeper than your comprehension.

 

We can come to a common ground, but you need to open up beyond your bitter points of reference concerning a time proven spiritual tradition that liberates deeply, called Buddhism. You just see what you want to see and you think you're right, but this is only because you really do lack direct experiencing. You need a nice dose of humility as your intellectual boner takes too much space in your brain activity. You are too proud!

Edited July 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

It's ramifications lead to understanding directly, infinite regress which is the realization of endless and infinite mindstreams as well, all empty of inherent existence and inter-dependently originated, endlessly. Not leading to a single all encompassing substratum, which is not what Rigpa means, or like concepts of God as a willful Alpha of everything, or an underlying essence that one must surrender to.

 

The religion of dependent origination is much subtler than you have yet to understand ralis. This is because you only have periphery experience and not in depth experience. I know this from your responses to me.

 

You also don't understand how we collectively as endless sentient beings and Buddhas are the prime movers and manipulators of experiential reality, even in matter. You say, "what? How can we be the cause of this material reality? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!" You say this because you have not delved deep enough into your own unconscious and uncovered your previous existences directly. Seeing your previous existences directly also see's others and how we've been playing endlessly and manipulating matter endlessly as beings of consciousness. Your periphery and merely intellectual comprehension that lacks direct experience of the profundity of the Buddhas teaching is plastered all over your reactions to my statements backed by sages far deeper than your comprehension.

 

We can come to a common ground, but you need to open up beyond your bitter points of reference concerning a time proven spiritual tradition that liberates deeply, called Buddhism. You just see what you want to see and you think you're right, but this is only because you really do lack direct experiencing. You need a nice dose of humility as your intellectual boner takes too much space in your brain activity. You are too proud!

 

 

You insist for some unknown reason that my experience is so limited that it will never measure up to your judgment of me. I make a very honest statement about the cosmos and all you do is try to humiliate me.

 

You have fully demonstrated here the real problems with religion and it's adherents.

 

ralis

[dwai]

 

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.

Wisdom Truth Freedom!?!

What does this sentence even mean? In English, it means these things (Taoist traditions which lead to Buddhist enlightenment) are hard to find for the sake of future generations! Try using that translation (correct meaning) in the sentence quoted above. Such intellectually "sound" statements are aplenty when it comes to this certain individual (who is responsible for the rapacious treatment of English AND Buddhism)

pos·ter·i·ty

   [po-ster-i-tee] Show IPA–noun1.succeeding or future generations collectively: Judgment ofthis age must be left to posterity.2.all descendants of one person: His fortune was graduallydissipated by his posterity

Edited July 15, 2010 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

You insist for some unknown reason that my experience is so limited that it will never measure up to your judgment of me. I make a very honest statement about the cosmos and all you do is try to humiliate me.

 

You have fully demonstrated here the real problems with religion and it's adherents.

 

ralis

 

Typical ralis reasoning. You endlessly demonstrate the real problem with most people on planet Earth, who think they know without actually having been here with awareness for very long.

 

I'm not your typical Buddhist who has just read some books and "believes". Get over yourself and get over your judgment of Buddhist terminology as you merely show your lack of flexibility.

 

You've been following me around, judging me endlessly. Look in the mirror more deeply.

 

I'm just finally telling you about yourself as you endlessly judge me, no matter how much I ignore you. You don't even really read the meaning of my statements, all you spit is your dogmatic spite.... over and over and over and over.

[ralis]

 

 

You also don't understand how we collectively as endless sentient beings and Buddhas are the prime movers and manipulators of experiential reality, even in matter without beginning, Buddhas from a liberated point of reference and Samsarins from a bound point of reference, thus we have endless dualisms.

 

What I am beginning to notice is that Buddhism as you put forth, is really a patriarchal system. The manipulation and control of reality is a very patriarchal concept. After all the Buddha was a male. That is not to say all males buy into a patriarchal system.

 

The Tao is more about flow rather than control.

 

ralis

Edited July 15, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Wisdom Truth Freedom!?! What does this sentence even mean? In English, it means these things (Taoist traditions which lead to Buddhist enlightenment) are hard to find for the sake of future generations! Try using that translation (correct meaning) in the sentence quoted above. Such intellectually "sound" statements are aplenty when it comes to this certain individual (who is responsible for the rapacious treatment of English AND Buddhism)

 

Posterity of clarity, instead of posterity of muddling and meddling by the foolish, much like what's been done to Hatha Yoga.

 

You don't find Yantra (physical Buddhist) Yoga which is just as old getting abused, do you? This is because it's saved for those that will really utilize it and not capitalize on it.

 

This is what I mean by posterity.

[Vajrahridaya]

What I am beginning to notice is that Buddhism as you put forth, is really a patriarchal system. The manipulation and control of reality is a very patriarchal concept. After all the Buddha was a male. That is not to say all males buy into a patriarchal system.

 

ralis

 

Another typical foolish mis-defining of my sentences.

 

What I mean is that all sentient beings, be it female or male co-originate this process of expansion and contraction, endlessly. We are collectively the Brahma's, Vishu's and Shiva's of it all, but since we are we's, we are not an inherent Self of all as well to be pinpointed or surrendered to, this leads to merely formless absorptions, or trances. As in high up concepts integrated with everything, thus not really emptying the cause of re-becoming.

 

Also, we don't "control"... generally we are controlled by our own unconscious reactions based upon endless circumstances of conditioning. Again, you miss the subtle ramifications of the teachings of Buddhas.

 

It's really only Buddhas who have freedom, as they are awake.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

The Tao is more about flow rather than control.

 

ralis

 

Flow with what? Habit patterns? Scars of conditioning engraved in your unconscious, manifesting so fast in your environment of experience as supports for your mental dogmas, or rather, pre-conceptions?

 

So... surrender to Samsara to experience mere pleasurable conformity?

[ralis]

Another typical foolish mis-defining of my sentences.

 

What I mean is that all sentient beings, be it female or male co-originate this process of expansion and contraction, endlessly. We are collectively the Brahma's, Vishu's and Shiva's of it all, but since we are we's, we are not an inherent Self of all as well to be pinpointed or surrendered to, this leads to merely formless absorptions, or trances. As in high up concepts integrated with everything, thus not really emptying the cause of re-becoming.

 

Also, we don't "control"... generally we are controlled by our own unconscious reactions based upon endless circumstances of conditioning. Again, you miss the subtle ramifications of the teachings of Buddhas.

 

It's really only Buddhas who have freedom, as they are awake.

 

 

You used the term "manipulators".

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You used the term "manipulators".

 

ralis

 

Yes, but unconsciously so, or subconsciously so for the most part. Buddhas are consciously aware of how they influence positively on all levels of action and intention.

[Raymond Wolter]

Buddhas are consciously aware of how they influence positively on all levels of action and intention.

 

How do you know what the Buddhas are aware of or not? Through direct experience of Buddhahood which means you are a Buddha or you are parroting what is written in a sutta or a Buddhist scripture?

[Raymond Wolter]

It's really only Buddhas who have freedom, as they are awake.

 

How do you know this if unless you have experienced the freedom? Again are you parroting some writing which you think is true?

[Vajrahridaya]

How do you know what the Buddhas are aware of or not? Through direct experience of Buddhahood which means you are a Buddha or you are parroting what is written in a sutta or a Buddhist scripture?

 

True that, but not parroting, as I do have enough direct glimpses as fruit of practice.

 

You can take it or leave it. Just try not to suffer to much if my experiential opinions differ from yours.

[Vajrahridaya]

How do you know this if unless you have experienced the freedom?

 

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh! integrate, integrate, integrate. :lol:

Edited July 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Raymond Wolter]

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh! integrate, integrate, integrate. :lol:

 

 

Ok, if you cannot answer, admit it

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok, if you cannot answer, admit it

 

Oh, sorry for experiencing the answer. I didn't mean to alienate you. Sorry, the story of my life... thus, integrate, integrate, integrate!

[Raymond Wolter]

True that, but not parroting, as I do have enough direct glimpses as fruit of practice.

 

You can take it or leave it. Just try not to suffer to much if my experiential opinions differ from yours.

 

 

Well, don't worry too much about my suffering

 

So what you say is that "glimpses" have given you the entire picture and you KNOW what the Buddhas are aware of, how free they are etc.? If glimpses have given you all this realization, what is the next stage? So are you saying you have had glimpses of Buddhahood as in temporary Buddhahood that lasted for a period of time?

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, don't worry too much about my suffering

 

So what you say is that "glimpses" have given you the entire picture and you KNOW what the Buddhas are aware of, how free they are etc.? If glimpses have given you all this realization, what is the next stage? So are you saying you have had glimpses of Buddhahood as in temporary Buddhahood that lasted for a period of time?

 

You're worrying to much about the intricacies of my direct experiencing. This is quite private and hardly going to help you if I explain it directly as it takes practice, practice, and more contemplation... as well as the merits from previous lives. I'm just saying that my insight into the Buddhas thoughts are not merely academic, nor are they epidermic.

[Raymond Wolter]

You're worrying to much about the intricacies of my direct experiencing. This is quite private and hardly going to help you if I explain it directly as it takes practice, practice, and more contemplation... as well as the merits from previous lives. I'm just saying that my insight into the Buddhas thoughts are not merely academic, nor are they epidermic.

 

So you make some statements - experience or not of which you have failed to explain through simple logic and expect people to accept them without question?

 

Question was simple. How can you categorically speak of Buddhas if you yourself are not one - unless its purely theoretical. You said glimpses - and I asked how can you approximate a glimpse to paint the entire picture, even if one assumed you did glimpse something real and magnificent. You warded my question. You yourself stated that in Buddhism everything is explainable through words and logic unlike other incomplete and vague paths such as Taoism.

 

Fair enough, you can expect that but don't assume that is what is going to happen. Like you think rebutting folks here endlessly and all over the place is your way of awakening them to reality, questioning your beliefs is my way of showing you compassion

Edited July 15, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Vajrahridaya]

So you make some statements - experience or not of which you have failed to explain through simple logic and expect people to accept them without question? Fair enough, you can expect that but don't assume that is what is going to happen. Like you think rebutting folks here endlessly and all over the place is your way of awakening them to reality, questioning your beliefs is my way of showing you compassion

 

All I am really going to speak about is the content of Suttas and Sutras.

 

If you actually read the Suttas and Sutras, you do see many debates by the Buddha.

 

The Buddha did debate against other belief systems.

 

If you want to know me further, you can go ahead and read my past posts with an open mind. Thus far, you have not really shown much of an open mind towards anything I've said, so... why speak?