Sounds like a Taoist/Buddhist cross...

[C T]

Yep. And it is exactly this concept that prevents me from considering Buddhism any more than I do. I consider this to be a one-sided view. We must also, IMO, consider the fullness of everything at any given moment in time. Sure, things change. That is a given. True, nothing lasts forever. But there are many thing in this universe that will last far longer than I will so I can even, relative to my life, consider those things eternal (even though they are not).

 

To understand both the emptiness (mortality) of everything while also understanding the fullness of everything (at any given moment in time) is a better view, I think.

 

As it is said: First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

 

That is, our early observations are strictly of the Manifest, then as we mature (hopefully) we realize the temporal nature of all things. But we don't stop there; we go back to the mountain and live our life to the fullest.

 

I think that to stop at emptiness leaves one with an empty feeling. This is a wrong feeling, IMO.

 

If we consider fullness of life and self-actualization as key goals in life I believe that we will live a much richer (spiritually) and fuller life.

 

So even though I agree with you regarding emptiness I believe you, and Buddhism, is looking at only a small portion of the whole. Maybe that's why I'm not a Buddhist?

 

Peace & Love!

Greetings MH!

 

Buddhist emptiness is not the same as saying that all manifestations are not lasting enough to ascribe any importance and vitality to them, and therefore they ought to be discarded since they are all ultimately non-lasting and impermanent. I see this as how you perceive the doctrinal view of Emptiness and Interdependent Origination.

 

Just wanna say its an erroneous interpretation of the principle mentioned.

(For the benefit of those who read your comments and may get the idea that indeed Buddhism is really as lacking as you say).

 

That's all i wanted to comment on.

 

peace and love to you too!

[Marblehead]

Greetings MH!

 

Buddhist emptiness is not the same as saying that all manifestations are not lasting enough to ascribe any importance and vitality to them, and therefore they ought to be discarded since they are all ultimately non-lasting and impermanent. I see this as how you perceive the doctrinal view of Emptiness and Interdependent Origination.

 

Just wanna say its an erroneous interpretation of the principle mentioned.

(For the benefit of those who read your comments and may get the idea that indeed Buddhism is really as lacking as you say).

 

That's all i wanted to comment on.

 

peace and love to you too!

 

Thanks for the response. I laughed.

 

I fully understand what you are saying.

 

And this is why I get so irritated when Buddhists concentrate on emptiness. It is, IMO, an abortion of the concept that the Buddha taught.

 

But I assure you, while I am here and the Buddhists continue to concentrate on emptiness I will respond with a view of fullness.

 

I feel it is very important to view "all" aspects of reality instead of just one or two.

 

Actually, VJ and I had this very same discussion a while back and we came to an agreement.

 

I don't have a problem with talking about non-permanence. I even enjoy talking about non-materialism. But I feel we need balance and harmony when speaking to these issues and all I ever try to do is present an alternative view to the possible mis-understndings that can easily be had from statements about emptiness.

 

Of course, we all know I am a Taoist so I am naturally biased.

 

Peace & Love!

Edited August 1, 2010 by Marblehead

[xabir2005]

Thanks for the response. I laughed.

 

I fully understand what you are saying.

 

And this is why I get so irritated when Buddhists concentrate on emptiness. It is, IMO, an abortion of the concept that the Buddha taught.

 

But I assure you, while I am here and the Buddhists continue to concentrate on emptiness I will respond with a view of fullness.

 

I feel it is very important to view "all" aspects of reality instead of just one or two.

 

Actually, VJ and I had this very same discussion a while back and we came to an agreement.

 

I don't have a problem with talking about non-permanence. I even enjoy talking about non-materialism. But I feel we need balance and harmony when speaking to these issues and all I ever try to do is present an alternative view to the possible mis-understndings that can easily be had from statements about emptiness.

 

Of course, we all know I am a Taoist so I am naturally biased.

 

Peace & Love!

You are totally misunderstanding Buddhist emptiness if you think that emptiness and fullness are talking about different things.

 

As Heart Sutra, states, Form IS Emptiness, and Emptiness IS Form.

 

Apart from Form, there is no emptiness to speak.

 

As I wrote:

 

I find Alex's presentation of Emptiness/Shunyata as 'nothingness' or 'void' to be confusing.

 

In Buddhism, emptiness is *not* nothingness. It is not some formless void that is the background/substratum of all things (that would be the I AM realization/experience, sometimes eluded to/talked about in Zen texts, but it should not be confused with Shunyata).

 

What is emptiness (shunyata)?

 

Shunyata (Emptiness) means whatever appears are empty of independent or inherent existence, be it a sound, a form, or any other phenomena. This is because it is the 'interconnectedness' that give rise to the sound or experience (The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears, etc, i.e. the conditions). Whatever you see, hear, etc, do not exist 'in and of itself' but are 'interdependently originated'.

 

Thus, whatever arises interdependently is vividly clear and luminous, but empty of any *independent* or *inherent* existence. This is not the same as nothing or nihilism - as Heart Sutra states: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form.

 

Nagarjuna:

 

Whatever is dependently co-arisen,

That is explained to be emptiness.

That, being a dependent designation,

Is itself the middle way. (Treatise, 24.18)

 

Something that is not dependently arisen,

Such a thing does not exist.

Therefore a nonempty thing

Does not exist. (Treatise, 24.19)

__________________

[Marblehead]

You are totally misunderstanding Buddhist emptiness if you think that emptiness and fullness are talking about different things.

 

Thanks for the response Xabir. Yes, you and I have had an agreement on this in the past as well.

 

I know the fullness what what you are saying here but the reason I always speak up is because these thing are rarely said during any of the normal discussions.

 

I am just trying to keep us all honest.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

This book by Bateson is useful in this discussion. I just posted this on my new thread 'The Double Bind'

 

http://www6.ufrgs.br/horizon/files/teoria2/bateson.pdf

 

 

ralis

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[xabir2005]

This shunyata doctrine seems to at the center of discussion. Not as void, but as empty of independent origination or independent causation. In other words all things are dependently originated, due to some other thing, and so on. This seems a lot like cause and effect in science. An object is caused to become some effect due to contact from some external object coming into contact with it. In this way dependent effects follow dependent causes.

 

So in this sense objects are "empty" of any ability to independently originate, as it's all just a non-stop stream of dependent cause and effect.

 

SO we are like the black billiard ball sitting still at the center of the table. We will sit still there forever because there is no independent origination of movement or anything. We must wait for the external cue ball we depend on - in dependent origination - to come into contact us and originate our motion (dependently) into the desired (by the 8 ball) corner pocket. Without the external input of which we depend on to originate motion etc, we are doomed to sit still there forever without the internal, independent power to do anything about it. So this could be called living on Fate I guess

 

This is shunyata as far as I can understand it.

 

Please correct me where I'm wrong?

 

What am I missing?

No... D.O. is not about fatalism.

 

Because you are forgetting the part about 'intention' and 'imprints'.

 

Your imprints and intentions play a part in interdependent origination... so you need to take an active role in life otherwise nothing gets done.

[3bob]

"Rest and unrest derive from illusion; with enlightenment there is no liking and disliking. All dualities come from ignorant inference. They are like dreams or flowers in the air; foolish try to grasp them. Gain and loss, right and wrong: such thoughts must finally be abolished at once. If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease. If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are, of single essence. To understand the mystery of this One-essence is to be released from all entanglements. When all things are seen equally the timeless Self-essence is reached. No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state". Sosan

 

A Zen Patriarch using the word "Self" and "essence" a lot, which I'm sure some will rationalize away... but not me.

Edited August 2, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

"Rest and unrest derive from illusion; with enlightenment there is no liking and disliking. All dualities come from ignorant inference. They are like dreams or flowers in the air; foolish try to grasp them. Gain and loss, right and wrong: such thoughts must finally be abolished at once. If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease. If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are, of single essence. To understand the mystery of this One-essence is to be released from all entanglements. When all things are seen equally the timeless Self-essence is reached. No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state". Sosan

 

A Zen Patriarch using the word "Self" and "essence" a lot, which I'm sure some will rationalize away... but not me.

 

 

This is actually a bad translation. He's really just talking about emptiness, not a true inherent essence. In English translations, emptiness is often translated as essence giving a kind of mis-understanding for most Westerners. If you realize the nature of your self, you realize inter-dependence, malleability, emptiness, thus the fullness of total freedom. You should study Nagarjuna as most Zen patriarchs are well versed in his explanations. You will stop making the mistake of assigning inherent existence in these English translations.

 

You seem to be quoting a lot of Theist sounding Zen translations. Milarepas' translations suffered from this mistake long ago as well, but this has since been corrected.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

how easy to explain things away.

[Marblehead]

"Rest and unrest derive from illusion; with enlightenment there is no liking and disliking. All dualities come from ignorant inference. They are like dreams or flowers in the air; foolish try to grasp them. Gain and loss, right and wrong: such thoughts must finally be abolished at once. If the eye never sleeps, all dreams will naturally cease. If the mind makes no discriminations, the ten thousand things are as they are, of single essence. To understand the mystery of this One-essence is to be released from all entanglements. When all things are seen equally the timeless Self-essence is reached. No comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state". Sosan

A Zen Patriarch using the word "Self" and "essence" a lot, which I'm sure some will rationalize away... but not me.

 

Actually, I think he went too far with his words. The colored area of the quote has nothing to do with how we should live our life and it doesn't even apply to our physical life.

 

In the Manifest realm all things are as they are. These things are what support our physical life. And they all are manifestations of Tao, to be accepted or rejected according to the value they have for us, the individual.

 

Let us not confuse the concept of the usefulness of emptiness with the concept of the emptiness of all essences because this would be an error.

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

"no beyond phenomena source of everything"

 

I hadn't understood Taoism like that. I understand reality like spirals (yeah, I know, not very good explanation) and I understand Buddhist interpretation of reality to be a simple reversal of some human dualistic thinking (hence the dependent arising stuff). I think that's why Buddhism is more accessible to some Westerners - because they are already dualists after all this time so no big deal to reverse it as a thought experiment.

 

Taoism brings in for me the part between the dualistic polarities (yin and yang) - and the fact that both of those are a) always changing (into their opposites, if I can recall) and contain the seed of each other even as they arise. For me it's just a better "dependent arising" map than the Buddhist one.

 

Then we get Taoist 5E. Buddhism has it too, but the elements are different and don't seem to flow into each other the same way as Taoist 5E. Taoist 5E is also compatible with the yin/yang model.

 

I see this an an indication that Buddhist 5E is out of step with the rest of the system and I figure as such, it must be a borrowing from something else. Hinduism?

 

At one point, the 3 religions (Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism) were apparently linked (I'll need to go dig to find out when and by who exactly) but then the Buddhists destroyed large swathes of the Taoist material (again I will need to go check who and when).

[Brian]

...

[Marblehead]

Help me understand -- how is "dependent origination" different than "effect follows cause, ad infinitum?"

 

IMO there really is no difference. What causes them to appear different is the way the prodesses are explained to happen. In Taoism everything falls back to Tzujan - the processes of Tao and all within. The first cause being the Big Bang. The Big Bang happened because it had to happen. No further explanation necessary. (In fact, that is part of the unknowable.)

 

I will not attempt to speak to the Buddhist side.

 

Peace & Love!

[Brian]

...

[Vajrahridaya]

IMO there really is no difference. What causes them to appear different is the way the prodesses are explained to happen. In Taoism everything falls back to Tzujan - the processes of Tao and all within. The first cause being the Big Bang. The Big Bang happened because it had to happen. No further explanation necessary. (In fact, that is part of the unknowable.)

 

I will not attempt to speak to the Buddhist side.

 

Peace & Love!

 

The Buddhist perspective is just that the big bang happened due to causes and conditions left over from the previous big crunch at the end of the last universe add infinitum and not due to a supremely conscious will. The Buddhist view is that we are all co-creating our realities, as in all sentient beings through more dimensions than merely the 5 sense physical. Thus dependent origination does not have a first cause. So, dependent origination does not have a rooftop concept or transcendent be all that one can allocate everything to as the supreme mystery behind all things. As in, according to Buddhism, all aspects of reality can be known directly through right investigation. There are no intellectual, emotional or experiential excuses for ignorance. According to Buddhism, a Buddha knows exactly how the cosmos works, directly through intuitive insight.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Yes, that is my understanding but I confess that my knowledge on this is very limited. I may very well be wrong.

 

Peace & Love!

 

But you choose Tao rather than Zen?

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Leon, my friend. All religions and spiritual practices deep down are the same. When you trascend the self and commune with the Divine source all phenomena ceases to exist. I am now using words but really one needs to experience it because the truth words can't really define it.

 

When you reach the final goal you start manifesting the divine light that is buried deep within us. But even then you still will be present in a human body and mind, having to go to work and pay bills and taxes like the rest of us

 

Keep practicing and remember to focus on your higher self at all times even when you catch the bus or buy fruit at the grocery store.

 

In the meantime visiting this forum reminds you that the world out there vibrates at a different rate.

 

Keep going, my friend.

 

Good luck!

 

 

Thank you!

That was beautifully said.

I totally agree and understand what you are saying.

It's whatever feels right for you.

Experience is the determining factor in what/which thought/belief/religion to choose.

Thanks!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I see this an an indication that Buddhist 5E is out of step with the rest of the system and I figure as such, it must be a borrowing from something else. Hinduism?

 

 

I don't think there is evidence to support that it came from Hinduism. The Buddhist 5 element insight comes directly from the Buddha in the Suttas I think and more so in the Mahayana. The system of 5 Elements within Buddhism which is also what is used to realize the Jalus or rainbow body in Dzogchen where a practitioner leaves no physical traces behind comes from about 200 B.C.E. So they must be doing something right if the realization can be evidenced through a physical medium such as the human body completely disappearing. Vajrayana is not borrowed from Hinduism and in fact Buddhist Tantra appears historically before Hindu tantra in India. There have been new findings in anthropology revealing this. Just as there really was no Hinduism per say before Buddhas 40 years of teaching, just scattered forest paths and then the pre-domenent Brahmanistic Vedic caste system. Most of the Upanishads and Puranas were written long after the Buddhas appearance. Including all of the more erudite ones. As the Buddhas explanations of detail were quite inspiring to all, even those that wanted to say he was wrong had to do so by following some sense of his inspiring detail oriented explanations. In fact, the major form of Hinduism dominating India at this point called Advaita Vedanta did not appear until the 8 or 900's A.D., though mainly using the Upanishads and the Puranas as basis (also previously influenced by the Buddhas teachings), is heavily influenced by Mahayana Buddhism which appeared in dominance at least a 1,000 years earlier. Mahayana is the form of Buddhism that moved to China during the very early part of this era, back when Buddhism was still dominant in India long before the Muslim invasions. While the majority of the Tantric form of Buddhism is what moved North into the Himalayas at the around the same time, some forms of Buddhist Tantra did go East to China and Japan during the same time in the early part of this era (2000 years).

[Marblehead]

The Buddhist perspective is just that the big bang happened due to causes and conditions left over from the previous big crunch at the end of the last universe add infinitum and not due to a supremely conscious will. The Buddhist view is that we are all co-creating our realities, as in all sentient beings through more dimensions than merely the 5 sense physical. Thus dependent origination does not have a first cause. So, dependent origination does not have a rooftop concept or transcendent be all that one can allocate everything to as the supreme mystery behind all things. As in, according to Buddhism, all aspects of reality can be known directly through right investigation. There are no intellectual, emotional or experiential excuses for ignorance. According to Buddhism, a Buddha knows exactly how the cosmos works, directly through intuitive insight.

 

Hi VJ,

 

And so we can see a bit of difference here. Taoism simply says it does not know what might have happened before the beginning. We do not assume things we cannot give substantial proof in support of.

 

Peasonally, I do accept what you said above regarding the big crunch but this is not defined in any way in Taoist Philosophy. So you see, I can imagine what might have been but I do not consider myself a Buddha or any other form of all-seeing individual.

 

Removal of ignorance based on guess-work is, IMO, just pretending we have knowledge. To imagine anything withour adeqaute supporting evidence for doing so is nothing more or less than creating illusions and delusions.

 

We need to stick with what we can and are capable of knowing. Yes, intuitive insight is neat stuff. I always follow my intuitions but I have no logical reason for doing so.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

But you choose Tao rather than Zen?

 

Actually I did not look that deeply into Zen. Who knows what might have happened if I had studies Zen before I studied Buddhism?

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Removal of ignorance based on guess-work is, IMO, just pretending we have knowledge. To imagine anything withour adeqaute supporting evidence for doing so is nothing more or less than creating illusions and delusions.

 

We need to stick with what we can and are capable of knowing. Yes, intuitive insight is neat stuff. I always follow my intuitions but I have no logical reason for doing so.

 

Peace & Love!

 

The Buddha talked about what was prier to the Big Bang and spoke of past life memories from previous universes. You can evidence this for yourself through meditation. I personally have, so my information for me at least does not come from some blind indoctrination. I don't believe that we have limits to what we can know beyond the 5 senses through direct intuitive knowing.

 

I am not a Buddha, but I've definitely had my level of direct visions of the truths sermon-ed by the Buddha. Most of the experiences happened even before I really started studying Buddhism and Buddhism just gave more of a clear context for my meditative experiences.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

The Buddha talked about what was prier to the Big Bang and spoke of past life memories from previous universes. You can evidence this for yourself through meditation. I personally have, so my information for me at least does not come from some blind indoctrination. I don't believe that we have limits to what we can know beyond the 5 senses through direct intuitive knowing.

 

I am not a Buddha, but I've definitely had my level of direct visions of the truths sermon-ed by the Buddha. Most of the experiences happened even before I really started studying Buddhism and Buddhism just gave more of a clear context for my meditative experiences.

 

 

Hehehe. I wasn't trying to knock you or the Buddha. Sorry if you got that impression. Taoist words are not always flowery.

 

But I think you just suggested that you and the Buddha hold to the Taoist concepts of cycles and reversion. That's great! Of course, it's too late for the Buddha to become a Taoist but there is still time for you.

 

Peace & LOve!

[adept]

The Buddha talked about what was prier to the Big Bang

 

Where ?

[Marblehead]

Where ?

 

Hehehe. Yes, I saw that but I wasn't going to put him on the spot.

 

3Bob's intention, I think, was to talk about some of the similarities between Buddhism and Taoism.

 

We all need read VJ with a filter capable of removing BS.

 

Sorry VJ, but you brought it on yourself.

 

Peace & Love!