Is Tao an Ontological Essence of Life?

[Raymond Wolter]

 

You can continue to bark like a dog in heat or really understand the context.

 

That's an insult and uncalled for.

 

Mr. Cow, what do you have to say about this language from your neo-Buddha who you shower lavish praise on? You agree with such insults too? Why are you not chastising him in the same spirit as cheering for him other times (all times?)

 

 

Glad you're back Vaj. I for one respect your mental dexterity and disciplined manners. Dragonfire seems to think i am in your troupe, and DHem thinks i am a Russian chick who has the hots for you, and they are the ones who adhere to (read adore) Full-lotusism, which apparently is the be-all and end-all, according to the 'walking encyclopedia' of O's at a D. With all his intelligence, he cant even tell the difference between a male and female bum... Oh bummer!

 

 

I am grateful for all your insights Vajrahridaya, and for the constant reminders to maintain right view. Inspiring, to say the least. I can see your sincerity, and the fact that there are no motives behind your words other than being a vehicle to carry the words of the Tathagata is truly admirable.

 

Unlike me, you are a true ambassador of buddhadharma, a fact recognisable thru your deep, spontaneous understanding and expression of the teachings. May your progress be swift, and your path free from obstacles.

 

Edited July 15, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, but there aren't many of us.

You know, I used to have a liking for some forms of Buddhism (Chan, Zen, Son). But the constant fundamentalist preaching by Vaj and a few others on here has made me realize that it's not for me. True buddhists wouldn't even argue or claim superiority over other points of view.

How sad.

 

Oh, so the Buddha arguing against Mahaviras conclusions (of Jainism) and the superiority of his middle way view compared to Jainism extremist view has turned you off?

 

You really need a re-orientation in understanding the nature of debate. Seriously folks... you people want some new age all absorbing fundamental principle, imperialist concept of oneness, messy thought consciousness, all roads lead to Rome but really don't, to take over the world? This in fact is the seed of Samsara, the all absorbing principle seed state of storehouse consciousness. This lack of deep self questioning and clinging to conceptual comfort zones is quite insidious and the demarcation of Samsaric (recycling karma) clinging. Most of you don't even know what these sentences mean, on an experiential level, but you still want to argue? Wow! More bricks in the wall...

 

It's funny... the first time I said that phrase in this argument was a few hours ago. After that, me and my wife went into my car to take a ride to the store and we turned on the radio to hear who...? Pink Floyd! A strange serendipity. I don't need to conform to your philosophies of all absorbing trance, transcendent non-conceptual substance. I will not fall into a formless sleep... thank you very much.

 

Really though... Tashi Delegs!!

Edited July 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

That's an insult and uncalled for.

 

 

But really... look at yourselves. See how reactive you all are. :lol:

 

No really... do... just for one second, take the time out.

 

I'm just saying that the view of dependent origination is contrary to all absorbing and all conforming oneness, that is all.

 

Oh how deep!

[adept]

Seriously folks... you people want some new age all absorbing fundamental principle, imperialist concept of oneness, messy thought consciousness, all roads lead to Rome but really don't, to take over the world?

 

No, we're just interested in the Tao and it's myriad manifestations.

Life, and the beauty of being involved in all that it is.

Since when was Taoism 'new age' ?

[Starjumper]

So, let's let bygones be bygones, ... eh? Can we not get along,

 

No, and remember that when you see the hole you are about to fall into, you asked for it.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

"Superior" applies only to the individual. That is, their path is the best path at the moment. Tomorrow may be different.

 

This is true, but if you are awake, you will not disagree with a Buddha.

 

For me Taoism is "superior". There are many folks who feel that Christianity is "superior" and that all Buddhists and Taoists are people who have not yet 'seen the light'.

 

Yes, but lets be frank. This view arises dependent upon ignorant assumption.

 

To constantly argue over our delusions when there is only one reality is so useless.

 

Peace & Love!

 

But, these arguments reveal that there is not only one reality. Though there is only one way that reality does work, and that is mutual co-origination within infinite spectrum... "the way" that reality does it's doing. This DO'es mean that every conclusion of how things work is not really in line with how things work, even though it's the way of multiplicity and one can indeed experience

their own way

as reality, as life reflects the principle of perception and ones view.... thus proving dependent origination and the emptiness of static self. Edited July 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

No, we're just interested in the Tao and it's myriad manifestations.

Life, and the beauty of being involved in all that it is.

Since when was Taoism 'new age' ?

 

Since you thought of it as an all absorbing principle that truly exists from it's own side.

[Vajrahridaya]

No, and remember that when you see the hole you are about to fall into, you asked for it.

 

There is no hole, there is only potential... endless, from the highest to the high and the lowest of the low.

 

Know more, directly... of what you are speaking about.

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, on 15 July 2010 - 12:19 AM, said:

 

Okay. I am going to say right here that this post was a direct challenge for an arguement.

 

VJ, have you ever considered the thought that Ralis does not want to accept Buddhist thought?

 

 

You do not have direct experience of our history, first of all.

 

What? WTF?!?!?!?! You know what I know? Who TF are you? Some all-sseing immortal god-like being? I have been reading the freaking posts and Ralis gets on your case every time you inject Buddhism into a Taoist concept thread. That is reality. Don't assume what I know because it only shows your ignorance. And don't put all the blame on Ralis because it takes two to argue. You are just as, if not more, agruementive as Ralis is.

 

Second... I don't care if he doesn't accept Buddhist thought, that is fine. So, he doesn't have to accept Buddhist terminology. That is fine, if he is liberated from all terminology then he can understand the meaning of all it's expressions. Every-time I post, he insists it's from mere book worm conditioning... or from the point of view of religiosity. Of this he is gravely mistaken and thus contradicts from the point of view of mis-association and mis-comprehension.

 

So even here you take the opportunity to cut Ralis down saying that he is not liberated. When you say thing like that you should first say them to the mirror before you say them to others. You just might find that you are speaking to your own short-comings when you accuse others of short-comings.

 

 

You judged him in many ways above, and you have, firstly, no right to be judging, and secondly, unfairly because you are judging according to 'your' criteria and not 'his'.

 

 

You should take a look at his historical rebuttals towards me MarbleH. If you are to come from a more informed state of mind.

 

I have. And I will point out that you just did me a dis-service by stating that I am speaking from an uninformed state of mind. I read the freaking posts. My comprehension is rather well-established. You both, at times, are so freaking hard-headed it is a wonder that you can actually understand the words the other is saying.

 

And lastly, this thread is not for the purpose of showing the shortcomings of anyone who does not accept Buddhism as the base philosophy of life. It is about Taoism.

 

Whatever, you are taking things too personally and are coming from a place of defensiveness right here. The main point of this argument is whether "the way" is an ontological essence or an undefinable flow of non-self oriented, but interconnected phenomena. I have stated so many times that "Dharma" means..."The way" but you so called experienced but neophyte like seem to not see past your curtain of conceptual bondage and merely see, "Dharma" as more Buddhist jargon to defend against. You have no idea how trapped you are in what you project me to be.

 

But why the heck do you find it necessary to translate Taoist terms into Buddhist terms? Can't you just speak to the subject at hand instead of trying to force your Buddhist misunderstandings on everyone?

 

Yes, I take it personally when someone destroys a perfectly beautiful discussion of a Taoist concept with a bunch of Buddhist BS. You know I have always taken that personally and I don't expect to change much in that regard in the near future.

 

Yes, we can compare and contrast but in suggesting that Ralis is lacking because he follows Tao instead of Buddhism is totally unacceptable, IMO.

 

 

He does not follow Tao as he is quite inflexible in his ability to re-orient his inner conceptual mapping.

 

And I will suggest right here that you do not follow the Buddha's teachings. How do you like that? You are far too quick to judge others but you fail to look into the mirror and judge yourself.

 

Please understand that not everyone wishes to be a Buddhist. Some of us have tried and found it lacking in foundation.

 

 

Subjective mis-representation at work here.

 

You can continue to bark like a dog in heat or really understand the context.

 

That response is so filled with ignorance it is truely pathetic. A mis-representation to say that some people do not wish to be Buddhists? You've got to be shitting me!

 

Talk about barking? You, a Buddhist, barking all your Buddhist BS on a forum designed primarily for the discussion of Taoist and related subjects.

 

What's the problem? You got banned from all the Buddhist forums because of your close-mindedness? You should be ashamed!

 

The harder you press your Buddhist BS the more strongly the Taoists here will oppose you. Oh, sure, every now and then you say something of value. I grant you that. And you do get recognition when you do so. But why do you constantly need to express your superior understanding. Seems to me that the people who do that the most often are the most insecure people holding to a belief that has not brought them inner peace and contentment.

 

So you go ahead and judge all the people on this forum who disagree with you. But understand that there are a number of us who know you are full of manure and you should be applying your goodness to the plants in your yard and clear your mind so you can see life as it truely is.

 

I truely do wish you:

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

That's an insult and uncalled for.

 

 

Yes, VJ has a habit of insulting those he disagrees with or does not understand.

 

Sad that personal attacks are necessary. Just show the inadequacy of their arguement.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

You really need a re-orientation in understanding the nature of debate.

 

And you. Sir, can be a real ass sometimes.

 

Please stop insulting people!!!! Who the freak are you to be judging people?

 

Peace & Love!

[C T]

That's an insult and uncalled for.

 

Mr. Cow, what do you have to say about this language from your neo-Buddha who you shower lavish praise on? You agree with such insults too? Why are you not chastising him in the same spirit as cheering for him other times (all times?)

Ok here goes, an open admonishment:

 

Mr Vajrahridaya - I hereby chastise you by the authority vested in me through the high office of one Mr Raymond Wolter, who, incidentally, does not know when enough is enough. Satisfied? (OMG!! Good thing i am bald! )

 

@ Raymond - If its attention you seek, please say something at least remotely resembling the OP. Thanks. Or you too can end up stalking me chronically. Might be a good thing... who knows. For the publicity and all...

[Raymond Wolter]

Yes, VJ has a habit of insulting those he disagrees with or does not understand.

 

Sad that personal attacks are necessary. Just show the inadequacy of their arguement.

 

Peace & Love!

 

He will continue to disrupt every discussion and say the same thing over and over again. And the cheering by the cheer leader squad gives him a false impression that he is truly expressing teachings of the Dharma here and doing a great service to humanity. Notice how those complaining of snide and immature remarks are now quiet! Unfortunate but true. You will get an advice soon to examine your reactive attitude, contemplate and be more open minded.

[Marblehead]

Seriously folks... you people want some new age all absorbing fundamental principle, imperialist concept of oneness, messy thought consciousness, all roads lead to Rome but really don't, to take over the world? This in fact is the seed of Samsara, the all absorbing principle seed state of storehouse consciousness. This lack of deep self questioning and clinging to conceptual comfort zones is quite insidious and the demarcation of Samsaric (recycling karma) clinging. Most of you don't even know what these sentences mean, on an experiential level, but you still want to argue? Wow! More bricks in the wall...

 

And this is more BS that isn't even close to what the Buddha taught, I'm sure. You have abandoned reality and are floating on some cloud somewhere. Too much LSD!!!

 

Peace & Love!

[Raymond Wolter]

Ok here goes, an open admonishment:

 

Mr Vajrahridaya - I hereby chastise you by the authority vested in me through the high office of one Mr Raymond Wolter, who, incidentally, does not know when enough is enough. Satisfied? (OMG!! Good thing i am bald! )

 

@ Raymond - If its attention you seek, please say something at least remotely resembling the OP. Thanks. Or you too can end up stalking me chronically. Might be a good thing... who knows. For the publicity and all...

 

You do not appear serious or sincere. Sorry! It was fun so far but now you are partaking in Vajra's insult hurled at Mr. Marble. Ok, time for another merit badge. Well, I will probably be banned for this but what the heck - why don't you bend over and let Vajra do his thing? Grow a spine please, will you? Do you still pretend I am the only one having issues with Vajra and his croonies - you figure in the top of this list. If you have nothing faint to say about anything but Buddhism, why the hell are you not in a Buddhist forum? Or in a Vajra fan forum where you can keep cheering for him? You are sad! And Buddha is not proud of you.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Marblehead]

But really... look at yourselves. See how reactive you all are. :lol:

 

No really... do... just for one second, take the time out.

 

I'm just saying that the view of dependent origination is contrary to all absorbing and all conforming oneness, that is all and that I am full of shit so don't take anything I say seriously.

 

Oh how deep!

 

Oh how deep the shit gets piled! Stig could use a lot of that in his garden.

 

Peace & Love!

[Starjumper]

There is no hole, there is only potential... endless, from the highest to the high and the lowest of the low.

 

Know more, directly... of what you are speaking about.

Wow, this guy is thick, isn't he?

[Vajrahridaya]

Marblehead, on 15 July 2010 - 12:19 AM, said:

 

Okay. I am going to say right here that this post was a direct challenge for an arguement.

 

VJ, have you ever considered the thought that Ralis does not want to accept Buddhist thought?

 

 

You do not have direct experience of our history, first of all.

 

What? WTF?!?!?!?! You know what I know? Who TF are you? Some all-sseing immortal god-like being? I have been reading the freaking posts and Ralis gets on your case every time you inject Buddhism into a Taoist concept thread. That is reality. Don't assume what I know because it only shows your ignorance. And don't put all the blame on Ralis because it takes two to argue. You are just as, if not more, agruementive as Ralis is.

 

 

You're quite wrong. I do argue, but from the point of view of perspective rather than person.

 

Second... I don't care if he doesn't accept Buddhist thought, that is fine. So, he doesn't have to accept Buddhist terminology. That is fine, if he is liberated from all terminology then he can understand the meaning of all it's expressions. Every-time I post, he insists it's from mere book worm conditioning... or from the point of view of religiosity. Of this he is gravely mistaken and thus contradicts from the point of view of mis-association and mis-comprehension.

 

So even here you take the opportunity to cut Ralis down saying that he is not liberated. When you say thing like that you should first say them to the mirror before you say them to others. You just might find that you are speaking to your own short-comings when you accuse others of short-comings.

 

The mirror says that I'm right and he's quite wrong. Oh well...

 

 

You judged him in many ways above, and you have, firstly, no right to be judging, and secondly, unfairly because you are judging according to 'your' criteria and not 'his'.

 

 

You should take a look at his historical rebuttals towards me MarbleH. If you are to come from a more informed state of mind.

 

I have. And I will point out that you just did me a dis-service by stating that I am speaking from an uninformed state of mind. I read the freaking posts. My comprehension is rather well-established. You both, at times, are so freaking hard-headed it is a wonder that you can actually understand the words the other is saying.

 

Well.. you are reading subjectively then. Which is fine.

 

And lastly, this thread is not for the purpose of showing the shortcomings of anyone who does not accept Buddhism as the base philosophy of life. It is about Taoism.

 

Ok, so you also are attached to religious terminology not considering it religious at all?

 

Whatever, you are taking things too personally and are coming from a place of defensiveness right here. The main point of this argument is whether "the way" is an ontological essence or an undefinable flow of non-self oriented, but interconnected phenomena. I have stated so many times that "Dharma" means..."The way" but you so called experienced but neophyte like seem to not see past your curtain of conceptual bondage and merely see, "Dharma" as more Buddhist jargon to defend against. You have no idea how trapped you are in what you project me to be.

 

But why the heck do you find it necessary to translate Taoist terms into Buddhist terms? Can't you just speak to the subject at hand instead of trying to force your Buddhist misunderstandings on everyone?

 

I'm not forcing anything, I'm just trying to re-associate the terms into awake-ism within a context I can understand directly. Though, I am open contexted... I'll do it the other way around if oriented to do so.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, I take it personally when someone destroys a perfectly beautiful discussion of a Taoist concept with a bunch of Buddhist BS. You know I have always taken that personally and I don't expect to change much in that regard in the near future.[/color]

 

Then bound you will be, even after your death, of which you don't even have experience beyond, because you do limit the nature of your own consciousness to the 5 senses thinking that's the end all be all of perception. Really brother... there is more to see than the paradigm of your own self fooling through your 5 senses. Please get more mystical with yourself bro. Play with your own potential a bit more before leaving us physically.

 

Yes, we can compare and contrast but in suggesting that Ralis is lacking because he follows Tao instead of Buddhism is totally unacceptable, IMO.

 

 

He does not follow Tao as he is quite inflexible in his ability to re-orient his inner conceptual mapping.

 

And I will suggest right here that you do not follow the Buddha's teachings. How do you like that? You are far too quick to judge others but you fail to look into the mirror and judge yourself.

 

Well... except that the mirror is quite right in it's reflection.

 

Please understand that not everyone wishes to be a Buddhist. Some of us have tried and found it lacking in foundation.

 

 

Subjective mis-representation at work here.

 

You can continue to bark like a dog in heat or really understand the context.

 

That response is so filled with ignorance it is truely pathetic. A mis-representation to say that some people do not wish to be Buddhists? You've got to be shitting me!

 

No, in finding that it is lacking in foundation is based upon subjective karmic influence. Please think about what this means. This means that conditioned influences from within based upon without, as in the information thus experienced so far has subjected the experience of a persons view of Buddhism to limitations outside of reality.

 

Talk about barking? You, a Buddhist, barking all your Buddhist BS on a forum designed primarily for the discussion of Taoist and related subjects.

 

What's the problem? You got banned from all the Buddhist forums because of your close-mindedness? You should be ashamed!

 

No... but funny anyway.

The harder you press your Buddhist BS the more strongly the Taoists here will oppose you. Oh, sure, every now and then you say something of value. I grant you that. And you do get recognition when you do so. But why do you constantly need to express your superior understanding. Seems to me that the people who do that the most often are the most insecure people holding to a belief that has not brought them inner peace and contentment.

 

Is this your expression of inner contentment and security?

So you go ahead and judge all the people on this forum who disagree with you. But understand that there are a number of us who know you are full of manure and you should be applying your goodness to the plants in your yard and clear your mind so you can see life as it truely is.

 

I truely do wish you:

 

Peace & Love!

 

Oh of course I'm still an unpolished slab of marble. :lol: I wish you peace and love too. Just don't take my arguments so personally... as you really seem to. You seem to cling to your philosophy like religion.

[Marblehead]

This is true, but if you are awake, you will not disagree with a Buddha.

 

But let's suppose for a moment that in truth the Buddha was sleeping because he ate too many mushrooms? So to disagree with a Buddha would be the most natural thing to do.

 

Yes, but lets be frank. This view arises dependent upon ignorant assumption.

 

So you are saying that you are ignorant? I'm proud of you!!! Now, would you like to learn about reality or do you wish to remain on your LSD trip?

 

But, these arguments reveal that there is not only one reality. Though there is only one way that reality does work, and that is mutual co-origination within infinite spectrum... "the way" that reality does it's doing. This DO'es mean that every conclusion of how things work is not really in line with how things work, even though it's the way of multiplicity and one can indeed experience as reality, as life reflects the principle of perception and ones view.... thus proving dependent origination and the emptiness of static self.

 

More BS that is so vague to the point of being pointless. When you are pointless you should not life in the world of points.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

HAHAHA!!! So many buttons to push... so little time...

 

Please take care of yourselves.

[C T]

You do not appear serious or sincere. Sorry! It was fun so far but now you are partaking in Vajra's insult hurled at Mr. Marble. Ok, time for another merit badge. Well, I will probably be banned for this but what the heck - why don't you bend over and let Vajra do his thing? Grow a spine please, will you? Do you still pretend I am the only one having issues with Vajra and his croonies - you figure in the top of this list. If you have nothing faint to say about anything but Buddhism, why the hell are you not in a Buddhist forum? Or in a Vajra fan forum where you can keep cheering for him? You are sad! And Buddha is not proud of you.

Nah i dont think you would be banned. More like you will attract your own supporters in time... After all, its obvious there is this motivation simmering somewhere. Dont we all love a bit of rough and crass talk from time to time? Connects us with the despicable scums and rejects, the uncouth, and the pariahs of this world, right Mr Wolter?

[Vajrahridaya]

This is true, but if you are awake, you will not disagree with a Buddha.

 

But let's suppose for a moment that in truth the Buddha was sleeping because he ate too many mushrooms? So to disagree with a Buddha would be the most natural thing to do.

 

Yes, but lets be frank. This view arises dependent upon ignorant assumption.

 

So you are saying that you are ignorant? I'm proud of you!!! Now, would you like to learn about reality or do you wish to remain on your LSD trip?

 

It's good to know the capacity of the person I am arguing with. It's also good to know when pearls are being fed to... no... anyway. I'm sure you are a good person.

 

Take care...

Edited July 15, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

... thus proving dependent origination and the emptiness of static self.

 

You proved nothing. However, I will agree that all life is dynamic, not static. Even Self is not static because we, as are all things, are dynamic, constantly changing. But this has nothing to do with dependent origination, it has to do with the fact that Tao itself is dynamic.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Nah i dont think you would be banned. More like you will attract your own supporters in time... After all, its obvious there is this motivation simmering somewhere. Dont we all love a bit of rough and crass talk from time to time? Connects us with the despicable scums and rejects, the uncouth, and the pariahs of this world, right Mr Wolter?

 

:lol: The most worthy of compassion. As it say's, water flows from low to high to low again.