Taoism Vs Buddhism

[3bob]

"...Nagarjuna accepts no blame for those who make emptiness itself their obsession. And but two verses before this we find the famous monitum: "A wrongly perceived emptiness ruins a person of meager intelligence. It is like a snake that is wrongly grasped or knowledge that is wrongly cultivated..."

 

(and or unperceived )

 

good luck folks, have at it ...

Edited November 12, 2010 by 3bob

[Stigweard]

Emptiness is also empty of inherent existence, thus they talk about the emptiness of emptiness as in, neither can emptiness be established as true and real from it's own side. So once again, no... dependent origination is not a true existence, it's just an insight into relativity. It's the way of things, but it's not things. It cannot be considered as you say with the Tao, that the Tao is everything. That all things are the Tao, it's not like this with Dependent origination, as it's merely an insight that liberates completely without remainder.

Hold up there chappy A couple of points here ... firstly I am not trying to establish emptiness nor D.O. as some sort of "stand alone" truth that has inherent existence. They are a process of phenomena, I got it

 

But, as a process not as things, they are both constant and eternal. Is life constantly morphing from one thing to another? Of course they are and because they are then they can't really be called things, i.e. independent entities existing on their own, and so they are inherently empty.

 

But the process is still both constant and eternal.

 

And please would you stop with the "This is how you think" approach. I am sure I had a go at you earlier because of it. I have not said "Tao is everything" in the context that you are saying so quit that crap please

 

(The thing is though that you can't say either "Tao is everything" nor "Tao is not everything". In fact any sentence that starts with "Tao is" is fundamentally incorrect ... oh the joys )

 

And this comment: "It's the way of things, but it's not things." That my friend approximates Tao. Tao means Way, so anytime you misconstrue otherwise please remind yourself of this. And if you hear someone trying to make out Tao is a thing then please you have my full endorsement to remind them as well

 

 

 

 

Dependent origination is an insight into how things work, into the process, but the process is empty, thus dependent origination does not truly exist either.

Equally:

 

"Tao is the process of how things work, but the process is empty, thus Tao does not truly exist, but neither does Tao truly not exist."

 

So it's not the same kind of meditative absorption into the sphere of nothingness that is talked about in Taoist meditation.

I am going to assume that you haven't had extensive training in Taoist meditation because your statement here is incorrect. Please be careful making such broad comments.

 

Anyway back to my little ditty:

 

"Humanity dependently originates with Earth,

Earth dependently originates with the Universe,

The Universe dependently originates with Buddha-nature.

 

Endless cycle without inherent substance or selfhood,

Dynamic creativity without origin or self."

[3bob]

Heck with it, the Buddha is a great teacher for Buddhists and also has good points for those of other paths to consider....

 

 

BUT just "give me that old time religion":

 

Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal

 

"He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth".

 

Om

Edited November 12, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

"...Nagarjuna accepts no blame for those who make emptiness itself their obsession. And but two verses before this we find the famous monitum: "A wrongly perceived emptiness ruins a person of meager intelligence. It is like a snake that is wrongly grasped or knowledge that is wrongly cultivated..."

 

(and or unperceived )

 

good luck folks, have at it ...

 

Yes, and Nagarjuna was clear that to take emptiness as an inherent ultimate, or a self established truth is exactly what the mistaken understanding of emptiness is.

 

Nagarjuna was a very staunch supporter of the doctrine of anatta and a non-substantialist and criticized Vedanta, the Upanishads and the Vedic traditions in general.

 

I think it's somewhat funny, and naive when Hindus or supporters of the Upanishads use Nagarjuna to support their argument of an eternal self existing cosmic consciousness.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hold up there chappy A couple of points here ... firstly I am not trying to establish emptiness nor D.O. as some sort of "stand alone" truth that has inherent existence. They are a process of phenomena, I got it

 

But, as a process not as things, they are both constant and eternal. Is life constantly morphing from one thing to another? Of course they are and because they are then they can't really be called things, i.e. independent entities existing on their own, and so they are inherently empty.

 

But the process is still both constant and eternal.

 

Good, I have no argument here. I fully agree, but still, nothing is established. Even Dependent origination is not established. Read Nagarjuna on this, he's exhaustive.

 

And please would you stop with the "This is how you think" approach. I am sure I had a go at you earlier because of it. I have not said "Tao is everything" in the context that you are saying so quit that crap please

 

Don't take me misunderstanding your wording so personally Stigweard... seriously... it's ok! If I just misunderstood or miscontextualized your words, that's all that happened.

 

(The thing is though that you can't say either "Tao is everything" nor "Tao is not everything". In fact any sentence that starts with "Tao is" is fundamentally incorrect ... oh the joys )

 

Ok... Sounds good, I apologize for misunderstanding. But doesn't Lau Tzu say that the Tao exists before the Heaven and the Earth? I guess if it's just a process of things and because other universes existed prier to this one, under the law of Tao, or mutual inter-dependence, then in that sense... ok. We have no disagreement! Oh the joys!

 

And this comment: "It's the way of things, but it's not things." That my friend approximates Tao. Tao means Way, so anytime you misconstrue otherwise please remind yourself of this. And if you hear someone trying to make out Tao is a thing then please you have my full endorsement to remind them as well

 

Hmmm... Alright then! Thank you for your exhaustive debate! I think I have a clearer notion as to what your understanding is. That's awesome!

 

 

 

 

Equally:

 

"Tao is the process of how things work, but the process is empty, thus Tao does not truly exist, but neither does Tao truly not exist."

 

Ok, I can agree with that as well, it's not established, neither her nor there. No fixed view.

 

I am going to assume that you haven't had extensive training in Taoist meditation because your statement here is incorrect. Please be careful making such broad comments.

 

What you don't experience the void of nothingness in meditation? I could have sworn I've read that you do from a prominent Taoist master?

 

Anyway back to my little ditty:

 

"Humanity dependently originates with Earth,

Earth dependently originates with the Universe,

The Universe dependently originates with Buddha-nature.

 

Endless cycle without inherent substance or selfhood,

Dynamic creativity without origin or self."

 

 

Well... Buddha-nature just means emptiness, the infinite potential of any sentient being. Because you are empty, you have infinite potential, and that's really all Buddhanature means. When you read Tantric literature that talk about the experience of Buddhanature as clear light, infinite wisdom, etc. They are just talking about the signs of experiencing emptiness consciously, having the direct insight into things as dependently originated, makes the personal consciousness clear and shine without obstacle or obscuration, and one sees all connections so wisdom naturally arises in conjunction.

[Vajrahridaya]

Heck with it, the Buddha is a great teacher for Buddhists and also has good points for those of other paths to consider....

 

 

BUT just "give me that old time religion":

 

Yuan-shih T'ien-tsun -- The First Principal

 

"He has no beginning and no end. He existed "before the void and the silence, before primordial chaos." He is self-existing, changeless, limitless, invisible, contains all virtues, is present in all places and is the source of all truth".

 

Om

Yes, definitely considered a Samsaric interpretation of a meditative experience where the identity of the person self transcends, yet still clings to an identity within that experience as being transcendent and full of and in itself, as what happens in the formless samadhis. So indeed, there is no way this can be reconciled with the Buddhas teachings of anatman, thus is not the same insight into the nature of things, and is not the same non-dual comprehension of reality.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm finally having a Eureka! It feels awesome!! I get it!!

 

Thanks Stig for your patience!! I'm having a bliss attack!! :lol:

[majc]

[Vajrahridaya]

 

And surely, saying any more than this is counter-productive? Obviously the Buddhist approach you quoted takes being concise to the next level... maybe one step too far, sacrificing some clarity and creating opportunities for reading a bit too much into something very simple.

 

Now that's a completely subjective value judgment. Buddhas' concise clarity has liberated countless people on the Earth plane.

 

Other than that... love the quote! It's a nice comparison.

[majc]

Now that's a completely subjective value judgment. Buddhas' concise clarity has liberated countless people on the Earth plane.

Oh I know it is!

 

It's also self-defeating since I am saying more as soon as I make the comparison between it and something either more concise (Buddhist version) or less concise (epic Tao Bum thread).

Edited November 12, 2010 by majc

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh I know it is!

 

It's also self-defeating since I am saying more as soon as I make the comparison between it and something either more concise (Buddhist version) or less concise (epic Tao Bum thread).

 

Ok dude... :lol: Please don't defeat yourself... Unless it's in that spiritual sense of overcoming yourself.

[3bob]

Yes, definitely considered a Samsaric interpretation of a meditative experience where the identity of the person self transcends, yet still clings to an identity within that experience as being transcendent and full of and in itself, as what happens in the formless samadhis. So indeed, there is no way this can be reconciled with the Buddhas teachings of anatman, thus is not the same insight into the nature of things, and is not the same non-dual comprehension of reality.

 

A skip in the recording, over and over again.... that is deaf to itself.

[Marblehead]

 

In other words, this Universe gives rise or even gives birth to the next Universe.

 

Actually, that is the way it is if your understanding is based in the concepts of "cycles" and "reversion".

[Marblehead]

I said, transcendent of things... You are saying exactly what I said, that it's not a thing, it's beyond things, that means exactly the same thing that I said.

 

I was hoping we could get back to that understaning we had a couple months ago. Thanks.

 

 

In Buddhism we reveal the nature of the mystery thus find liberation through insight, revealing that there is really no mystery.

 

 

The different words we use always makes it appear that we are disagreeing with each other. But we really are not. In Taoism, the condition of full 'wu' reveals the Mystery. (We don't talk about liberation though, we call it intuitive wisdom.)

[Vajrahridaya]

A skip in the recording, over and over again.... that is deaf to itself.

 

Sewing seeds of liberation in the subconscious...

[Gerard]

Gee, it's the same, most spiritual paths lead to the same ending. In our case: entering Wuji. Buddhism: reaching Nirvana/Paranirvana. Christianity (the real one, mystic Christianity): communion with God, total loss of sense of self and pure infinite awareness of the Greater Order which has no start and no end. Islam (Sufism, the real Islam):

 

And I began to melt away at that, as lead melts (in the heat of the fire). Then He gave me to drink from the Fountain of Grace in the Cup of Fellowship, and transformed me into a state beyond description, and brought me near unto Him, and so near did He bring me that I became nearer to Him than the spirit to the body. And I continued thus until I became even as souls of men had been in the state before existence was (Bastami, Sufi Mystic, 804-874 AD).

 

The Sufi concept of the power of the saint's soul to travel and in its spiritual form, even after death, to appear to the living. The Quran mentions that some of those who have proven their sincerity have achieved a life beyond the grave (سَبِيلِ اللّهِ أَمْوَاتًا بَلْ أَحْيَاء عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ; Wala tahsabanna allatheena qutiloo fee sabeeli Allahi amwatan bal ahyaon AAinda rabbihim yurzaqoona; Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord).

 

Free of Samasara, they travel back and forth between the Samsaric dream and the Ultimate Reality. Buddhas do the same thing, I have seen them in my meditations and it is a wonderful experience that keeps your motivation levels high all the time. No more dark night of the soul which is a really painful experience that can last for years. Some spiritual practitioners end up giving up because of this difficult barrier to break. I recommend retreat as a recipe and close support/monitoring from an accomplished teacher.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Gerard

[Marblehead]

I recommend retreat as a recipe and close support/monitoring from an accomplished teacher.

 

And this would be identical to the Native American "Vision Quest" where the student may (or may not) make contact with their 'spirit guide'.

[dwai]

The Buddha taught that consciousness as well arises dependently and is not a self. Thus Shaivism and Buddhism are not in cahoots. They teach different things. So, you either agree with the Buddha, or you agree with Shankara, and you cannot agree with both, except on a superficial level of some of the benefits of meditation and yoga.

 

Consciousness arises due a kind of fermentation of the elements as they cycle in each moment. Consciousness is not a basis for everything, it's just the most important element that arises within the cycle of dependent origination because without that element, there would be no sentience and no liberation as well.

 

First and foremost, Shankara was not a Shaivite...he was an Advaitin and he suggested that Non-Dual awareness is not for everyone and one might have to progress through stages to reach it (so he insisted that seekers take the Bhakti or Devotion path of complete surrender (total soong) if they were not intellectually inclined to follow jnana yoga)

 

 

Secondly Buddhism posits Consciousness as an endless and begining-less stream and that there are infinite such streams connected together (indra's jeweled net?) -- this is called Alaya Vijnana. Shankara clearly showed (in his debates with Buddhists contemporary to him) that it doesn't make any sense to consider infinite such streams of consciousness but rather is better to consider this as a single infinite, endless and begining-less consciousness (which would then explain the Non-Dual experience best)

 

The mind dependently with objects (as any object in consciousness is a thought and therefore constitute the mind). But mind and all objects are nothing but superimposition upon pure Consciousness.

[Simple_Jack]

From The Diamond Sutra,: The Buddha said, "The living beings in the multitude of lands have many different kinds of minds which are known to the Tathagata. Why is this? That which the Tathagata calls the mind is not really the mind but is merely called the such."

The Diamond Sutra: Shubuti replied " As I understand the teaching of the Buddha, there is no definitive Dharma called anuttara-samyaksambodhi, nor is there any definitive Dharma which the Tathagata can expound. Why is this? The Dharma which the Tathagata expounds is inconceivable and beyond words. It is neither Dharma nor not-Dharma. All of the saints and sages vary only in mastery of this."

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

I'm done in this thread, but before I depart I want to to add one more thing. Since I'm so attached to Zen and Vaj likes Zen dialogue so much (LOLZ,) I'll post this......

 

From The Zen teaching of Bodhidharma: Everything that appears in the three realms comes from the mind. Hence Buddhas of the past and future teach mind to mind without bothering about definitions.

But if they don't define it, what do they mean by mind?

You ask. That's your mind. I answer. That's my mind. If I had no mind, how could I answer? If you had no mind how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real Buddha. This mind is the Buddha says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature, the absence of cause and effect, is whats meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a Buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind, but such a place doesn't exist.

Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment is like trying to grab space. Space has a name, but no form. It's not something you can pick up or put down. And you certainly can't grab it. Beyond this mind you'll never see a Buddha. The Buddha is a product of your mind. Why look for a Buddha beyond this mind?

Edited November 12, 2010 by Simple_Jack

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

 

Secondly Buddhism posits Consciousness as an endless and begining-less stream and that there are infinite such streams connected together (indra's jeweled net?) -- this is called Alaya Vijnana. Shankara clearly showed (in his debates with Buddhists contemporary to him) that it doesn't make any sense to consider infinite such streams of consciousness but rather is better to consider this as a single infinite, endless and begining-less consciousness (which would then explain the Non-Dual experience best)

 

 

No, the difference between the two is subtle and deep. I understand it and experience it, having experienced the samadhi of infinite consciousness plenty of times, and know the difference between this formless samadhi of infinite, faceless consciousness and the buddha insight of d.o./e. It is not a superimposition upon a single omnipresent consciousness. The insight is different, thus it's not an absorption into a single pre-existing one, but rather an insight surpassing all the experiences surrounding yogic practice, liberating one from all, even the pesky tendency to cling to an ultimate sense of Self. The resulting cosmology is different, as well as the resulting way of being in the cosmos. As well as what happens at the end of a cosmic eon, a Buddha is not re-absorbed into a faceless consciousness which is really just an infinite concept that one is still clinging to.

 

The experience of infinite consciousness and it's interpretation as ultimate leads to a rooftop, a plateau to identify with, a crutch, while the experience and interpretation of infinite, endless mindstreams does not lead to a rootop but rather infinite regress and no plateau to identify with, no crutch.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya:

 

The Buddha awakened to inherent emptiness and interdependent origination under the bodhi tree. In my VERY LIMITED understanding: When Zen refers to Self Nature (Svabhava,) Mind, Original Nature, The Tao, it is not apart from inherent emptiness and interdependent origination. From The Diamond Sutra,: The Buddha said, "The living beings in the multitude of lands have many different kinds of minds which are known to the Tathagata. Why is this? That which the Tathagata calls the mind is not really the mind but is merely called the such."

 

I have no problem with Zen teachings, it's just some interpretations of them. Just like I have no problem with Vajrayana, but there are some popular masters from history and today who's interpretations I don't agree with, even if they are reputable. I find that some interpretations are still caught up in a slight obscuration of self clinging, even if blissful is not liberation.

 

Nagarjuna also warns about those that take up emptiness as ultimate. Emptiness is also relative.

 

 

I will neither reject or debate what you are saying. Once I have deeper insight; If I find what you say to be true, I will gladly drop the Zen teachings. Do not let my INSUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING represent a sect or it's followers (what I really tried not to convey was "an ultimate source," I fucked up obviously though.) I am non-sectarian, I really like Tibetan Buddhism. I just choose Zen as the main method to realization.

 

I think Zen is awesome and I agree with many of the various patriarchs teachings. Maybe my understanding is deficient and I have no idea what I'm on about here... eh?

 

I AM NOT QUALIFIED to speak of these things. The only reason I chimed in was so that the OP, would not have misunderstandings on the concepts of Buddhism.

 

Good intentions are always rewarded, even if misunderstood!

 

ALL I EVER WANTED was for the people with the insight and understanding to break down Buddhist concepts and terminology so that the OP and others could understand where it's coming from.

 

I agree.

 

I AM REALLY HAPPY, that you are starting to actually explain what this shit means. Now it would be fucking awesome if you explained what is Samadhi/Prajna and through those means they can verify Buddhism, and all religions/philosophies. It is too bad that some here think that spinning orbits and gathering chi is all there was to Daoism and is the ultimate path to truth.

 

Yes, Samadhi is very important, and Prajna is even more important! Though generally prajna doesn't come around except through Samadhi. Prajna sometimes doesn't open the door unless one gets permission from her uncle Samadhi.

 

Samadhi = meditative absorption

Prajna = energy of wisdom/ insight into the nature of things

 

I was once a die hard Taoist and vehemently rejected Buddhism (and other religions/philosophies,) until I decided to actually try and understand it. My view on reality has since changed. I learned I shouldn't be attached to just any one view when cultivating the path. You can follow both Surfing Buddha!!

 

Yes, I think with Taoism especially it's much easier to be a Buddhistaoist than lets say a Buddhist Christian, simply because the core of both Taoism and Buddhism are already so similar.

 

As it says in The Diamond Sutra: Shubuti replied " As I understand the teaching of the Buddha, there is no definitive Dharma called anuttara-samyaksambodhi, nor is there any definitive Dharma which the Tathagata can expound. Why is this? The Dharma which the Tathagata expounds is inconceivable and beyond words. It is neither Dharma nor not-Dharma. All of the saints and sages vary only in mastery of this."

I was so happy when I finally saw you were breaking down the terminology. I felt so happy for your eureka moment, 1 up point and motherfucking Gerard putting shit in perspective. I wanted to sob with joy!!!! OH THE JOY!!!! THE JOY!!!! THE JOY YOU MOTHAFUCKAZ!!!!!

 

WOW... I feel ya!! Good bliss man...

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm done in this thread, but before I depart I want to to add one more thing. Since I'm so attached to Zen and Vaj likes Zen dialogue so much (LOLZ,) I'll post this......

 

From The Zen teaching of Bodhidharma: Everything that appears in the three realms comes from the mind. Hence Buddhas of the past and future teach mind to mind without bothering about definitions.

But if they don't define it, what do they mean by mind?

You ask. That's your mind. I answer. That's my mind. If I had no mind, how could I answer? If you had no mind how could you ask? That which asks is your mind. Through endless kalpas without beginning, whatever you do, wherever you are, that's your real mind, that's your real Buddha. This mind is the Buddha says the same thing. Beyond this mind you'll never find another Buddha. To search for enlightenment or nirvana beyond this mind is impossible. The reality of your own self-nature, the absence of cause and effect, is whats meant by mind. Your mind is nirvana. You might think you can find a Buddha or enlightenment somewhere beyond the mind, but such a place doesn't exist.

Trying to find a Buddha or enlightenment is like trying to grab space. Space has a name, but no form. It's not something you can pick up or put down. And you certainly can't grab it. Beyond this mind you'll never see a Buddha. The Buddha is a product of your mind. Why look for a Buddha beyond this mind?

 

That's why even Buddhahood is relative.

 

Yes, I like this... thanks for sharing...

[forestofclarity]

[Marblehead]

And I call it being in the state of wu wei.