Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

 

 

What do you want me to say? Do you want me to quantify my glimpses? On October 8th, 1985 I experienced the Jhana of nothingness for approximately the timeless period of almost one hour. I mean... come on!

 

The above is about true, though I can't remember the date exactly. :lol:

 

I was 10 years old.

[Raymond Wolter]

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?

 

So unless I rally around you like Cow Tao and hand you merit badges, I am not open minded?

 

Again, you are using unrelated arguments to ward off my question. Your current post contradicts your previous one. So now you state you are relying upon Suttas to make statements regarding the Buddhas, theirs being the only freedom etc. That's really what I originally asked - are you parroting the suttas or there is more. So you did answer that question here, though indirectly.

[Vajrahridaya]

So unless I rally around you like Cow Tao and hand you merit badges, I am not open minded?

 

Again, you are using unrelated arguments to ward off my question. Your current post contradicts your previous one. So now you state you are relying upon Suttas to make statements regarding the Buddhas, theirs being the only freedom etc. That's really what I originally asked - are you parroting the suttas or there is more. So you did answer that question here, though indirectly.

 

Wow... another brick in the wall.

[Raymond Wolter]

What do you want me to say? Do you want me to quantify my glimpses? On October 8th, 1985 I experienced the Jhana of nothingness for approximately the timeless period of almost one hour. I mean... come on!

 

The above is about true, though I can't remember the date exactly. :lol:

 

I was 10 years old.

 

So you are saying the Jhana of nothingness is Buddhahood? Did that give you with exactitude your realization about Buddhahood, its state of freedom and state of awareness of the Buddha? So in other words, you are saying you experienced temporary Buddha hood? And Buddhahood is a Jhanic state is what you are implying hereby?

Edited July 15, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Raymond Wolter]

 

 

I was 10 years old.

 

So you are basing your conclusions on what you thought were glimpses of Buddhahood that you had when you are 10? I am not mocking you but just expressing my wonder.

[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.

 

 

Actually you are evading and hedging your arguments. You state all beings are manipulators, without defining what that means. Then you state "we don't control".

 

Patriarchy is not limited to males.

 

 

ralis

[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?

 

I don't create my own reality as you seem to believe. Flow is in regards to the changing nature of the cosmos.

 

You never provided a link where you claimed science has found matter left from a previous universe.

 

ralis

Edited July 15, 2010 by ralis

[C T]

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

This 'some writing' exists in all systems. Some are clearer, easier to use, while others are more befuddled, leading to hit-or-miss outcomes. For the minds that want everything to be simplified (read infantile) you may want to liken them to recipes. Recipes are not constitutional laws, which are inflexible things - recipes are flexible, workable and very much left to be moulded experientially as one stumbles around the cosmic kitchen.

 

All the Buddha did was to hand out recipes. Some tried them, and tasted the results, and found them to be flavorsome. Others did not like the prescribed recipes, discarding them even before attempting any useful experiment. Those who found favor with the recipes are given all the freedom to add things on or take things away to suit the individual taste.

 

This experiential mode while being engaged in IS the freedom... the allowance to observe the elated moments as well as the frustrating ones, and learn to regard these without any judgement, condemnation, or self-punishment.

 

Those who enjoy cooking often say the fun is in the process, not the end-result. Thats why great Chefs do not overly concern themselves with the end-result, for them the satisfaction lies in the little touches they instinctively know when to add or remove, and they also know that other lesser apprentices will only learn this thru deep interest, motivation, time and effort, combined to read 'fruitful experiences'.

 

Focus too much on the outcomes, and the joy of the process can easily be missed. This is what separates the great creative geniuses from the apprentices.

 

While apprentices fumble around asking if things were true, looking for distractive outer displays, the master chef's main concern would be to ask, "Does this work?"

 

Find out for yourself. If unwilling to, its definitely not the fault of the recipes.

Edited July 15, 2010 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

Vajra: Aaaaaaahhhhhhhh! integrate, integrate, integrate. :lol:

 

I should give context for the above.

Ah

is the sound that precedes the rest of Om in every momentary pulsation, in however you quantify it. It is the sound one naturally pronounces when struck with the sense of freedom by either understanding confinement directly and thus cutting through, or experiencing the state of ones mind in the moment that is prier to confinement, prier to definition. It's interesting that it's the beginning of most alphabets as well as the universal sigh of satisfaction across cultures. But, in Buddhist practice, we give awareness to it's inherent meaning, which is direct realization of emptiness, not as an ontological essence, but merely as a realization of infinite potentiality due to the fact of infinite malleability of phenomena, which basically means... freedom! Thus... Aaaaaaahhhhhhh! Edited July 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Raymond Wolter]

This 'some writing' exists in all systems. Some are clearer, easier to use, while others are more befuddled, leading to hit-or-miss outcomes. For the minds that want everything to be simplified (read infantile) you may want to liken them to recipes. Recipes are not constitutional laws, which are inflexible things - recipes are flexible, workable and very much left to be moulded experientially as one stumbles around the cosmic kitchen.

 

All the Buddha did was to hand out recipes. Some tried them, and tasted the results, and found them to be flavorsome. Others did not like the prescribed recipes, discarding them even before attempting any useful experiment. Those who found favor with the recipes are given all the freedom to add things on or take things away to suit the individual taste.

 

This experiential mode while being engaged in IS the freedom... the allowance to observe the elated moments as well as the frustrating ones, and learn to regard these without any judgement, condemnation, or self-punishment.

 

Those who enjoy cooking often say the fun is in the process, not the end-result. Thats why great Chefs do not overly concern themselves with the end-result, for them the satisfaction lies in the little touches they instinctively know when to add or remove, and they also know that other lesser apprentices will only learn thru time and effort.

 

Focus too much on the outcomes, and the joy of the process can easily be missed. This is what separates the great creative geniuses from the apprentices.

 

While apprentices fumble around asking if things were true, looking for distractive outer displays, the master chefs main concern would be to ask, "Does this work?"

 

Find out for yourself. If unwilling to, its definitely not the fault of the recipes.

 

Okay all that flowery talk is great

 

But that was not my point. My point was about how Vajra thinks only Buddhists can be Buddhas, how no other tradition has led to complete freedom like Buddhism, what a Buddha is aware of and not etc.

 

Nice words, irrelevant though.

 

Okay, now coming back to you ...

 

- Was Buddha the only one who handed the recipe? No one else had anything better or equally tasty? Different but equally good?

 

What is your take on other traditions like Christianity, Hinduism, Taosim etc.? Do you find them to be seriously flawed or incomplete like Vajra as well? Also observe that being clear or muddled is relative as well. What may be clear and direct to you may be useless and twisted to another and vice versa. For once, would appreciate if you give straight answers and not weave too many words. Gets boring after a while if you try to act too diplomatic and seek refuge under flowery words instead of the three jewels. Or you are adopting skillful means here and waiting for the right moment to express yourself more directly?

Edited July 15, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Vajrahridaya]

So you are saying the Jhana of nothingness is Buddhahood? Did that give you with exactitude your realization about Buddhahood, its state of freedom and state of awareness of the Buddha? So in other words, you are saying you experienced temporary Buddha hood? And Buddhahood is a Jhanic state is what you are implying hereby?

 

Nope, none of the above. Except for the fact that I experienced the Jhana of Nothingness at the age of 10. For further expression, I experienced the Jhana of neither perception nor non-perception at the age of 14.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually you are evading and hedging your arguments. You state all beings are manipulators, without defining what that means. Then you state "we don't control".

 

Patriarchy is not limited to males.

 

 

ralis

 

Oh ralis. I gave adequate elaboration above when I said that we manipulate unconsciously. You are merely stating your own assumptive definitions of my statements and being attached to these assumptions is revealing more about your own mental dogmas than mine.

[C T]

Okay all that flowery talk is great

 

But that was not my point. My point was about how Vajra thinks only Buddhists can be Buddhas, how no other tradition has led to complete freedom like Buddhism, what a Buddha is aware of and not etc.

 

Nice words, irrelevant though.

 

Okay, now coming back to you ...

 

- Was Buddha the only one who handed the recipe? No one else had anything better or equally tasty? Different but equally good?

 

What is your take on other traditions like Christianity, Hinduism, Taosim etc.? Do you find them to be seriously flawed or incomplete like Vajra as well? For once, would appreciate if you give straight answers and not weave too many words. Gets boring after a while

Please re-read the first sentence of the post in question.

 

Thank you very much sir.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't create my own reality as you seem to believe. Flow is in regards to the changing nature of the cosmos.

 

You never provided a link where you claimed science has found matter left from a previous universe.

 

ralis

 

Yes ralis, I don't remember which exact site I read that. Oh well. Realize it or not, it's up to you.

 

You don't create your reality, you co-create with infinite sentient beings as well as Buddhas.

[ralis]

This 'some writing' exists in all systems. Some are clearer, easier to use, while others are more befuddled, leading to hit-or-miss outcomes. For the minds that want everything to be simplified (read infantile) you may want to liken them to recipes. Recipes are not constitutional laws, which are inflexible things - recipes are flexible, workable and very much left to be moulded experientially as one stumbles around the cosmic kitchen.

 

All the Buddha did was to hand out recipes. Some tried them, and tasted the results, and found them to be flavorsome. Others did not like the prescribed recipes, discarding them even before attempting any useful experiment. Those who found favor with the recipes are given all the freedom to add things on or take things away to suit the individual taste.

 

This experiential mode while being engaged in IS the freedom... the allowance to observe the elated moments as well as the frustrating ones, and learn to regard these without any judgement, condemnation, or self-punishment.

 

Those who enjoy cooking often say the fun is in the process, not the end-result. Thats why great Chefs do not overly concern themselves with the end-result, for them the satisfaction lies in the little touches they instinctively know when to add or remove, and they also know that other lesser apprentices will only learn this thru deep interest, motivation, time and effort, combined to read 'fruitful experiences'.

 

Focus too much on the outcomes, and the joy of the process can easily be missed. This is what separates the great creative geniuses from the apprentices.

 

While apprentices fumble around asking if things were true, looking for distractive outer displays, the master chef's main concern would be to ask, "Does this work?"

 

Find out for yourself. If unwilling to, its definitely not the fault of the recipes.

 

Infantile? Exactly who are you referring to? There are certain people on here that have asked for clarity, not incoherent explanations. In my opinion, if one understands an experience, then it should be relatively easy to explain in a logical way. A process of writing that flows and does not include myriad logical fallacies.

 

 

ralis

[Raymond Wolter]

Please re-read the first sentence of the post in question.

 

Thank you very much sir.

 

I did, again and the verdict is still the same - irrelevant. Unless the only objective here is to cheer for Vajra.

 

Also, the enjoy the cooking and not the outcome thing - I have not seen this advice being dished out to Vajra? Probably because the broth has evaporated and there is nothing more to cook for the pot is empty (read emptiness)?

 

I do my job of asking questions to learn and you two do your job of correcting the rest of the world here using Buddhist paradigm on a Taoist forum (okay okay I get it - its not Buddhism, its Universal Truth, truth as it is, its just that only Buddha taught it, Buddhists realized it and Buddhism expresses it concisely and correctly). I may have lumped both of you together here but that shouldn't matter considering your unconditional endorsement of Vajra and his preaching here. May GOD bless both of us and save us from Brahman/Tao/God

 

Good night and namaste

Edited July 15, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[ralis]

Yes ralis, I don't remember which exact site I read that. Oh well. Realize it or not, it's up to you.

 

You don't create your reality, you co-create with infinite sentient beings as well as Buddhas.

 

If you can't back it up, then don't post it. Further, you are using pseudo science to back up you arguments.

 

ralis

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Nope, none of the above. Except for the fact that I experienced the Jhana of Nothingness at the age of 10. For further expression, I experienced the Jhana of neither perception nor non-perception at the age of 14.

 

...

Edited July 15, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[C T]

Infantile? Exactly who are you referring to? There are certain people on here that have asked for clarity, not incoherent explanations. In my opinion, if one understands an experience, then it should be relatively easy to explain in a logical way. A process of writing that flows and does not include myriad logical fallacies.

 

 

ralis

Exactly? Well, to the generally masses, of course...

 

If you are looking for specifics, then i would say 'a timely wake-up call to myself'.

 

Do you mind?

[C T]

I did, again and the verdict is still the same - irrelevant. Unless the only objective here is to cheer for Vajra.

 

Also, the enjoy the cooking and not the outcome thing - I have not seen this advice being dished out to Vajra? Probably because the broth has evaporated and there is nothing more to cook for the pot is empty (read emptiness)?

 

I do my job of asking questions to learn and you two do your job of correcting the rest of the world here using Buddhist paradigm on a Taoist forum (okay okay I get it - its not Buddhism, its Universal Truth, truth as it is, its just that only Buddha taught it, Buddhists realized it and Buddhism expresses it concisely and correctly). I may have lumped both of you together here but that shouldn't matter considering your unconditional endorsement of Vajra and his preaching here. May GOD bless both of us and save us from Brahman/Tao/God

 

Good night and namaste

Yes one can do loads with empty pots. Its the ones that are full that gets shoved to the back-burners.

 

Having answered your question, you dismissed it as irrelevant. (Shrug)

[ralis]

Okay all that flowery talk is great

 

But that was not my point. My point was about how Vajra thinks only Buddhists can be Buddhas, how no other tradition has led to complete freedom like Buddhism, what a Buddha is aware of and not etc.

 

Nice words, irrelevant though.

 

Okay, now coming back to you ...

 

- Was Buddha the only one who handed the recipe? No one else had anything better or equally tasty? Different but equally good?

 

What is your take on other traditions like Christianity, Hinduism, Taosim etc.? Do you find them to be seriously flawed or incomplete like Vajra as well? Also observe that being clear or muddled is relative as well. What may be clear and direct to you may be useless and twisted to another and vice versa. For once, would appreciate if you give straight answers and not weave too many words. Gets boring after a while if you try to act too diplomatic and seek refuge under flowery words instead of the three jewels. Or you are adopting skillful means here and waiting for the right moment to express yourself more directly?

 

 

From the so called sayings of the Buddha and the cultural context in which these sayings come from, it is clear to me the Buddha was preaching a reactionary message. Mainly against the Brahmans. Also there is disagreement among scholars as to the complete authenticity of the Buddha's sayings.

 

Further, the Tibetans have disposed of the so called lower teachings (Pali) and have accepted the teachings of Padmasambhava as the new Buddha. Over the centuries, there has been much infighting among the various sects.

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

- Was Buddha the only one who handed the recipe? No one else had anything better or equally tasty? Different but equally good?

 

Speaking merely anthropologically. The Buddha didn't just say some flowery statements here and there, nor did he write some ambiguous poetics that can be interpreted in many different ways. He spoke for 40 years and manifested a deeply defined path of method and contemplation, philosophy and psychology that has variant views for variant types of people, defining the many stages of results very clearly that happen upon the path. He stated the many states of focus meditation and the stages of mindful meditation. Plus so, so much more! There is no other individual who is attributed so many different spiritual teachings as a fire starter, or re-aligner of spiritual awareness on planet Earth as the Buddha. No one else did this with such clarity before him within recorded history. He spoke a way of seeing for renunciates and householders. It goes on and on, he spoke so much. He didn't just speak a little bit.

 

seek refuge ....the three jewels.

 

The Buddha taught this. He also taught not to associate too much with people who have extreme views. I find Taoism to be a tradition that either does or does not have the extreme view of Eternalism (self existing source of things without prier cause), depending on the individual.

[Vajrahridaya]

If you can't back it up, then don't post it. Further, you are using pseudo science to back up you arguments.

 

ralis

 

You act so threatened. Is your view of reality so ill based, merely 5 sense experienced?

[Raymond Wolter]

Yes one can do loads with empty pots. Its the ones that are full that gets shoved to the back-burners.

 

Having answered your question, you dismissed it as irrelevant. (Shrug)

 

Try telling that to a hungry group of people! I bet you cannot twiddle around with empty pots and shove away the filled ones. Try telling them the joy of cooking and how accomplishing the cooking itself is not important. There is something called being practical and grounded and there is this.

 

Again, irrelevant - and my question was willingly shoved away into the backburner. Okay, I guess your play is with empty posts oops sorry pots as usual. Have fun with the flowers but try to bring in a real flower once in a while

[ralis]

You act so threatened. Is your view of reality so ill based, merely 5 sense experienced?

 

I doubt if Namkhai Norbu would approve of your putting others down. Why is he not posting here if this is so important.

 

ralis