Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Vajrahridaya]

Is not Zen a yogacara (citta mattra) school not part of madhyamaka (sp?) so I am not sure that analysis works. I mean I don't see it is a misinterpretation but more a different view - 'mind/experience only'.

 

Actually no, Yogacara is not part of Madhyamaka. But, in Tibet they are reconciled. Asanga and Vasubandhu wrote the Yogacara texts and Nagarjuna wrote the Madhyamaka texts.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Udana sutra 8.3

 

 

You so don't understand what the Sutta means. You project your Eternalist views all over it thereby missing the point that he is just talking about the state of insight called Nirvana. Where one unbinds one's binding through insight. It is not talking about an eternal self standing essence.

 

You're an Eternalist, and the Buddha did not teach Eternalism. So, none of your beliefs and interpretations of experience can be supported by any Buddhist Sutra except those that find their interpretation in Shentong.

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddha was clear on the 5th precept. However, the precepts are training tools and not commandments in the Judeo-Christian sense.

 

 

Like I've said, Hinayana and Vajrayana precepts find their source in different intentions and times. They are different and yes, as you said ForestOE, are relative.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, the Buddha did not.. you choose to believe that in order to validate your own misplaced undestandings.. unfortunately, you are one of those people that will always one-up anything posted, in the name of your master.. The Jonestown result was manifested by the blindness of followers like you..

 

Be well..

 

TzuJanLi,

 

Wow, such ego! I guess you have yet to perfect the jhanas. Well me neither. I have experienced all of them though, directly. So, I know where you are coming from when you talk as you do.

 

You don't even study what the Buddha taught and don't even know where the basis of your disbelief in what he taught comes from because it comes from straight out rejection based on a lack of study. So, of course you would say something like this.

 

Farewell.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Backcheck the sourcing on your quote references.. and, try to understand just how desperate you are to be seen/noticed, for this to be about you..

 

Be well..

 

You are too defensive TzuJanLi.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually the koan "When the many are reduced to the one, to what shall the one be reduced?" is pointing to multiplicity.

 

As Richard Herman wrote before:

 

Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.

 

"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."

 

There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.

 

That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.

 

Ok, thanks for that clarification.

[Vajrahridaya]

You have mentioned your drinking several times and I thought I would comment on it. If you are adverse to your habits being discussed, then quit talking about it. You seem to need attention.

 

The topic was brought up by someone else ralis. Look at how subjective your interpretation of things are for a change.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Actually no, Yogacara is not part of Madhyamaka. But, in Tibet they are reconciled. Asanga and Vasubandhu wrote the Yogacara texts and Nagarjuna wrote the Madhyamaka texts.

 

 

You so don't understand what the Sutta means. You project your Eternalist views all over it thereby missing the point that he is just talking about the state of insight called Nirvana. Where one unbinds one's binding through insight. It is not talking about an eternal self standing essence.

 

You're an Eternalist, and the Buddha did not teach Eternalism. So, none of your beliefs and interpretations of experience can be supported by any Buddhist Sutra except those that find their interpretation in Shentong.

 

 

Like I've said, Hinayana and Vajrayana precepts find their source in different intentions and times. They are different and yes, as you said ForestOE, are relative.

 

 

TzuJanLi,

 

Wow, such ego! I guess you have yet to perfect the jhanas. Well me neither. I have experienced all of them though, directly. So, I know where you are coming from when you talk as you do.

 

You don't even study what the Buddha taught and don't even know where the basis of your disbelief in what he taught comes from because it comes from straight out rejection based on a lack of study. So, of course you would say something like this.

 

Farewell.

 

 

You are too defensive TzuJanLi.

 

 

Ok, thanks for that clarification.

 

 

The topic was brought up by someone else ralis. Look at how subjective your interpretation of things are for a change.

 

Hey Vajra,

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Hey Vajra,

 

 

Ah, so many anti-intellectual, anti-debate, new agers in the world. Alas, could be the fall of the dharma.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Well listen Mr Flappy Lipperton, half the posts in this thread are your chirpy Buddhist ones. It's like you just vomit Buddhism on your keyboard and it appears here on taobums lol.

 

Hey, if the dharma falls and blokes like Vaj go with it, hmm, just might be worth it.

Edited November 20, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[ralis]

Ah, so many anti-intellectual, anti-debate, new agers in the world. Alas, could be the fall of the dharma.

 

The problem is that you never debate and only choose to rant ad infinitum, untenable arguments. Further, you will be responsible for the lack of interest in the Dharma.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

More dharma talk to Vaj...

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[3bob]

You so don't understand what the Sutta means. You project your Eternalist views all over it thereby missing the point that he is just talking about the state of insight called Nirvana. Where one unbinds one's binding through insight. It is not talking about an eternal self standing essence.

 

You're an Eternalist, and the Buddha did not teach Eternalism. So, none of your beliefs and interpretations of experience can be supported by any Buddhist Sutra except those that find their interpretation in Shentong.

 

Where is this eternalist projection,(?) lets not forget the four-fold negation.

 

What the Buddha taught (Udana 8.3) is for each to find out (or otherwise) without being hammered with heavy-handed harping that "stinks of Zen" or harping from of any other school of Buddhism for that matter.

 

Such also applies to any other form of true spiritual teaching...

 

Om

Edited November 20, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

Well listen Mr Flappy Lipperton, half the posts in this thread are your chirpy Buddhist ones. It's like you just vomit Buddhism on your keyboard and it appears here on taobums lol.

 

Hey, if the dharma falls and blokes like Vaj go with it, hmm, just might be worth it.

 

I reply to posts towards me, if you would not reply to me, that would be one less post to reply too.

 

You should take an IQ test, find out where you stand. You vomit lots of judgments and sarcastic attacks, but seem to lack the ability to look at what part you play in this.

[Vajrahridaya]

Where is this eternalist projection,(?) lets not forget the four-fold negation.

 

You only apply the negation to empty of other and not empty of itself. You believe in an eternal, transcendent basis of all.

 

That's Eternalism.

 

What the Buddha taught (Udana 8.3)

 

Should be experienced directly of course, but should also be framed within the context of his entire teaching. People like to cut out little bits here and there and project their own meanings onto them outside of the entire teaching. This is just lazy.

 

The Buddha also criticized the Vedas which the Upanishads are based, do you know why? He also criticized Jainism for the same Eternalistic clinging.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

The problem is that you never debate and only choose to rant ad infinitum, untenable arguments. Further, you will be responsible for the lack of interest in the Dharma.

 

Ok, you can choose to ignore my posts. It might take patience, but the less you talk to me, the less you will see reply's and pretty soon I will fade into a distant memory. Your constant following me around and attacks don't do anything other than clutter the board with nonesense. There are plenty here who enjoy the things I say about the dharma in clarification of the view. You do not, so move on with your life ralis.

[3bob]

You only apply the negation to empty of other and not empty of itself. You believe in an eternal, transcendent basis of all.

 

That's Eternalism.

 

Should be experienced directly of course, but should also be framed within the context of his entire teaching. People like to cut out little bits here and there and project their own meanings onto them outside of the entire teaching. This is just lazy.

 

The Buddha also criticized the Vedas which the Upanishads are based, do you know why? He also criticized Jainism for the same Eternalistic clinging.

 

Belief is not always backed by experience... Being in overdrive to nail those believed to be eternalists down, (whoever or whatever that really is?) is counter productive since it results in also nailing oneself down with an attachement/motive to such a view.

 

"When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail. The way is perfect like vast space where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess. Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things. Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in inner feelings of emptiness. Be serene without striving activity in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves. When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity. As long as you remain in one extreme or the other you will never know Oneness. Those who do not live in the single Way fail in both activity and passivity, assertion and denial"

 

From Hsin Hsin Ming, the 3rd Zen Patriarch (note his use of the word oneness if you will)

 

Om

[Vajrahridaya]

Belief is not always backed by experience... Being in overdrive to nail those believed to be eternalists down, (whoever or whatever that really is?) is counter productive since it results in also nailing oneself down with an attachement/motive to such a view.

 

"When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail. The way is perfect like vast space where nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess. Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things. Live neither in the entanglements of outer things, nor in inner feelings of emptiness. Be serene without striving activity in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves. When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity. As long as you remain in one extreme or the other you will never know Oneness. Those who do not live in the single Way fail in both activity and passivity, assertion and denial"

 

From Hsin Hsin Ming, the 3rd Zen Patriarch (note his use of the word oneness if you will)

 

Om

 

This is a translation. So you have no idea what he really said. Just like the first Milarepa translations were muddled by Christian theistic interpretations.

 

It's clear you don't know what the Buddha taught. Keep quoting the Zen stuff to yourself. Oneness is a view, so is not the viewless view.

 

You go ahead with your oneness, I'll stay with emptiness.

[Vajrahridaya]

In Buddhism, there is talk of the oneness of all Buddhas' in realization, but that doesn't mean that all things are one non-thing. Just that all Buddhas are one in their perfect insight of the nature of things. All things are not one though, which is why the Buddha talked about transcending the formless jhanas/samadhis in order to gain true clarity into the nature of things as inter-dependent, but empty. The oneness experience is a trick of your own consciousness, nothing more, nothing less, it is not the nature of things.

[Marblehead]

Only a Buddha, for them doing still occurs without a doer. When there is no one left to slap, there is no reaction as if being slapped, in the sense that you are talking about. I'm not suggesting you go up to a Buddha and slap them physically.

 

Hehehe. Many Taoist Sages have been Buddhas then according to your criteria.

 

No, I really do not speak to physically slapping a person when I make that suggestion; more of a mental slap.

 

NO, I would never attempt physically slapping a Buddha or a Taoist Sage. The would likely be commiting suicide. Hehehe.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hehehe. Many Taoist Sages have been Buddhas then according to your criteria.

 

No, I really do not speak to physically slapping a person when I make that suggestion; more of a mental slap.

 

NO, I would never attempt physically slapping a Buddha or a Taoist Sage. The would likely be commiting suicide. Hehehe.

 

I'm sure there have been many Buddhas in many religions who did there best to teach according to the needs of their environment or within the capacity of their learned level of expression. That doesn't mean they taught the highest dharma though, then again, who knows? Lots of people have said things that have never been repeated or written down that I'm sure was of value for someone, somewhere at sometime?

Edited November 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

MH, what Xabir is saying is that duality is non-dual... right now. You can transcend your brains limits while integrating them perfectly into this level of awareness. This doesn't mean your brain stops functioning, it means that it continues to function but from a liberated state of perspective.

 

Yes Dear. I am fully aware of that. What appears to be a disagreement is nothing more than the difference in the words we use to explain our understanding.

 

I do live in a non-dualistic world a lot of the time. However, when I am working in my garden I have to think dualistically because, for me, there really is a difference between a flowering plant and a weed. But when I look at my roses I see the whole plant. (Well, I can't see the roots but you know what I mean.) But then I also view it dualistically so that I am aware that there are thorns on that plant too as well as the flowers and while the flower causes me visual pleasure the thorns would cause me physical pain if I grabbed any of the stems.

 

Hehehe. I gotta remind you that I am not in need of liberation as I am not imprisoned.

 

I just love those little key words you Buddhist like to use. Someone just recently used that nasty word "reify'. Hehehe.

 

And so, you Buddhists will continue to seek emptyness and we Taoists will continue to seek fullness. (No, we don't need to do that discussion again. Hehehe.)

[Vajrahridaya]

The expression of a Buddha arises dependent upon inner and outer conditions. Even the Buddha sometimes only taught the 4 immeasurable virtues in order to help that person get to a higher rebirth so that they could increase their capacity to eventually understand the dharma and come into better conditions for learning as such.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I do live in a non-dualistic world a lot of the time. However, when I am working in my garden I have to think dualistically because, for me, there really is a difference between a flowering plant and a weed. But when I look at my roses I see the whole plant. (Well, I can't see the roots but you know what I mean.) But then I also view it dualistically so that I am aware that there are thorns on that plant too as well as the flowers and while the flower causes me visual pleasure the thorns would cause me physical pain if I grabbed any of the stems.

 

Your still creating a dichotomy between dualistic and non-dualistic vision.

 

What I mean is that the inner state of recognizing the dual as non-dual is as simultaneous as a knowledgeable person differentiating between weeds and roses. The two states of perception are actually not-two for the liberated.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

... are no longer believed or held tightly.

 

This is a very important phrase. And it is consistent with the Taoist concept of not holding tightly to any of our opinions.

 

How can you control your next thought when you cannot even know what your next thought will be?

 

There is just this arising intention, of say, 'I think this needs to be done'. Followed by the subsequent thoughts 'I should...' blah blah blah. Thought arisings... they are interconnected but each thought is simply arising without a thinker and serves as a supporting condition for the next thought. Concentration is simply a focused thought arising... also without a thinker. Concentration itself is an arising mental phenomenon.

 

It is thought after thought... but no controller or thinker can be found. There is just this arising universe without an agent. And it is the entire experiential universe interacting in interdependence... no agent could be found controlling things.

 

You and I will never agree on this concept. We have tried before and it didn't work. There must be a thinker before a thought can be had. There are no independant thoughts. Remember, all things are dependantly originated.

 

I had no thoughts before I was born. I will have no thoughts after I die. I am the thoughts. (Well, there's a lot more to me than just thoughts.)