Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Apech]

Is your intuition still working? Do what needs be done. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Hey Marbles!

 

Such wisdom in one so young (relative to the age of the universe that is ).

 

A.

[Marblehead]

Hey Marbles!

 

Such wisdom in one so young (relative to the age of the universe that is ).

 

A.

 

Thanks.

 

Yeah, when we refer to my age we need to compare it with something that has lasted a very long time, like the moon or as you di, the universe. Hehehe.

[Stigweard]

Is your intuition still working? Do what needs be done. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I believe I just did

[Marblehead]

 

I believe I just did

 

Don't tell me. I don't want to know. I am laughing but I realize that whatever might have happened may not be something to laugh about.

 

Life is that way sometimes.

[strawdog65]

 

I believe I just did

 

 

 

Stigweard thank you for your thoughtfulness.

 

 

Contention for the sake of only contention is of no use to any of us.

In this struggle of two ego's, What is there to be won?

Having no usefulness why waste effort?

 

It's just an unpleasant reminder of the very distractions from the

Way, which I believe we are all here to reconnect with.

 

 

Thank you for your conscientious consideration.

 

Peace to all my brothers and sisters on the path.

[3bob]

Right Speech:

 

Abbess Taitaku Patricia Phelan

http://www.intrex.net/chzg/pat28.htm

Edited November 21, 2010 by 3bob

[Mark Saltveit]

What, you folks haven't sorted out Buddhism vs. Taoism YET? Sheesh, let's get working. (Rolls up sleeves).

 

It does seem to me that there are some fundamental differences, clouded by many similarities and their blending in Zen (Chan) Buddhism. One can argue that Lao Tzu has become a divine figure in some (many? most?) traditions of Taoism, but I don't think one can fairly argue that his incarnation -- if there ever really was such a person -- is as fundamental as that of Buddha to Buddhism. The essence of Buddhism is the personal experience of Gautama Buddha; there is no analog with Lao Tzu (nor is there another major philosopher comparable to Chuang Tzu).

 

Yet more fundamentally though, I think the essence of Buddhism is dualistic -- spirit vs. body, male vs. female, illusion vs. reality, nirvana vs. incarnation -- and there is a clear sense of which is better, vs. the balance of Taoism. Yes, I know people will say "but but the middle way." The middle way between illusion and reality? I don't think so.

 

Taoism is the only religious philosophy that (IMHO) is fundamentally accepting of the world, of physicality, of imperfection. In fact, it's greatest sin is the failure to accept that reality, the desire to change and shape it rather than working with it. Buddhism remains fundamentally uncomfortable with the world, hence you get celibate monks, etc.

 

OK, now that we've cleared that up, what else do you want to talk about?

[Stigweard]

What, you folks haven't sorted out Buddhism vs. Taoism YET? Sheesh, let's get working. (Rolls up sleeves).

 

It does seem to me that there are some fundamental differences, clouded by many similarities and their blending in Zen (Chan) Buddhism. One can argue that Lao Tzu has become a divine figure in some (many? most?) traditions of Taoism, but I don't think one can fairly argue that his incarnation -- if there ever really was such a person -- is as fundamental as that of Buddha to Buddhism. The essence of Buddhism is the personal experience of Gautama Buddha; there is no analog with Lao Tzu (nor is there another major philosopher comparable to Chuang Tzu).

 

Yet more fundamentally though, I think the essence of Buddhism is dualistic -- spirit vs. body, male vs. female, illusion vs. reality, nirvana vs. incarnation -- and there is a clear sense of which is better, vs. the balance of Taoism. Yes, I know people will say "but but the middle way." The middle way between illusion and reality? I don't think so.

 

Taoism is the only religious philosophy that (IMHO) is fundamentally accepting of the world, of physicality, of imperfection. In fact, it's greatest sin is the failure to accept that reality, the desire to change and shape it rather than working with it. Buddhism remains fundamentally uncomfortable with the world, hence you get celibate monks, etc.

 

OK, now that we've cleared that up, what else do you want to talk about?

LOL careful now, Taoism has celibacy as well. The Quanzhen sect has a strong tradition of celibacy, but it is not out of distaste for sex or sexual conduct (this is not me saying that that is what Buddhist celibates do). It is more about nurturing Jing for the quest of spiritual sublimation.

 

And the Shen Ren does have a recognition of "illusion" as well, but it's not that this world is illusional in preference for a reality that is more "real". It is more a recognition that a world view based on conceptual description is a very narrow and filtered perception, just a sliver of potential awareness. So the view that one's conceptual description of the world is "the only reality" is the "illusion" because reality in all it's subtlety is infinitely more.

 

This does agree with your statement the way of Tao is more liberally inclusive or accepting because, in the act of dissolving fixed conceptual views, the Shen Ren regards all views as equal.

 

[Mark Saltveit]

LOL careful now, Taoism has celibacy as well. The Quanzhen sect has a strong tradition of celibacy, but it is not out of distaste for sex or sexual conduct (this is not me saying that that is what Buddhist celibates do). It is more about nurturing Jing for the quest of spiritual sublimation.

 

Interesting. One of the difficulties in discussing Taoism of course is the diversity of practice. But I don't see the celibacy as fundamental to Taoism, nor do I see any support for it in the TTC or Chuang Tzu . Do you? (I concede that I'm not thoroughly familiar with the "outer chapters" of the latter.)

[Jetsun]

This is an area I am trying to make sense of because as far as I can see Taoism is almost entirely body based while Buddhism stresses working with mind or thought training as well so this difference is quite an important distinction if you want to choose the right way to progress. John Blofeld says in one of his books that in his extensive travels around China the majority of people he met who were considered enlightened were Buddhists and only a few Taoist which suggests that working with mind training may be important, while Taoists appear to have a better grasp on health promotion and strengthening practises. So for me at the moment a combination of the two approaches seems right to me.

[C T]

What, you folks haven't sorted out Buddhism vs. Taoism YET? Sheesh, let's get working. (Rolls up sleeves).

 

It does seem to me that there are some fundamental differences, clouded by many similarities and their blending in Zen (Chan) Buddhism. One can argue that Lao Tzu has become a divine figure in some (many? most?) traditions of Taoism, but I don't think one can fairly argue that his incarnation -- if there ever really was such a person -- is as fundamental as that of Buddha to Buddhism. The essence of Buddhism is the personal experience of Gautama Buddha; there is no analog with Lao Tzu (nor is there another major philosopher comparable to Chuang Tzu).

 

Yet more fundamentally though, I think the essence of Buddhism is dualistic -- spirit vs. body, male vs. female, illusion vs. reality, nirvana vs. incarnation -- and there is a clear sense of which is better, vs. the balance of Taoism. Yes, I know people will say "but but the middle way." The middle way between illusion and reality? I don't think so.

 

Taoism is the only religious philosophy that (IMHO) is fundamentally accepting of the world, of physicality, of imperfection. In fact, it's greatest sin is the failure to accept that reality, the desire to change and shape it rather than working with it. Buddhism remains fundamentally uncomfortable with the world, hence you get celibate monks, etc.

 

OK, now that we've cleared that up, what else do you want to talk about?

Actually, the essence of Buddhism is the alleviation of self-imposed, distorted views of dualistic projections. This does not mean that Buddhism teaches that all is One. What it means is that when Two is seen and grasped at, or rejected for that matter, it follows that One will arise in the mind... some want to cling to this One, and say this is the all, whereas there will be those who refute this and say there is no One, there is only the All. Fundamentally, such distinctions arise due to the grasping of Two. When the grasping nature of self is transcended, then neither One (singularity) nor Two (multiplicity) needs to be asserted nor negated. What remains then? So the nature of life itself is not suffering, as many seem to misunderstand, but it is the grasping after things that by nature is ungraspable that brings about an illusion of suffering (cravings for permanency).

 

Buddhist teachers often discourage the wasting of one's energy to argue trivialities about things that are too vague and too complex for a mind to fathom - instead, they would encourage mindfulness, loving kindness and compassion to be cultivated, and then integrated into one's daily life. Such useful practices are within everyone's reach, and will lead to the extinction of negative emotions and habitual tendencies.

 

What does it matter if all is One, or not? What is more crucial is to watch and discern how one thinks, speak and act towards self and others, and regard others with the same kind of respect and affection as one would regard one's parents. This sort of attitude engenders the development of tolerance, understanding, shared ideals, and positive participation in Life. And we all need such qualities by the truckloads. Naturally, there are some who have major issues with their parents... they were brought up abused, neglected, given away for adoption etc. Well, then these are all the more reasons, according to Buddhist teachings, to quickly invite more loving kindness and tolerance into one's view of self, so that healing and transformation can be effected.

[Marblehead]

New blood for old bodies. Hehehe.

 

I see no reason for me to say anything yet.

 

Enjoy the discussion.

[zerostao]

This is an area I am trying to make sense of because as far as I can see Taoism is almost entirely body based while Buddhism stresses working with mind or thought training as well so this difference is quite an important distinction if you want to choose the right way to progress. John Blofeld says in one of his books that in his extensive travels around China the majority of people he met who were considered enlightened were Buddhists and only a few Taoist which suggests that working with mind training may be important, while Taoists appear to have a better grasp on health promotion and strengthening practises. So for me at the moment a combination of the two approaches seems right to me.

Tao is very much about spirit as well.

[2netis]

 

The middle way between illusion and reality? I don't think so.

 

 

There is a reason that you don't "think" so. Right or wrong is not quite the point as you tend your own mind.

 

16.

 

Empty your mind of all thoughts.

Let your heart be at peace.

Watch the turmoil of beings,

but contemplate their return.

 

Each separate being in the universe

returns to the common source.

Returning to the source is serenity.

 

If you don't realize the source,

you stumble in confusion and sorrow.

When you realize where you come from,

you naturally become tolerant,

disinterested, amused,

kindhearted as a grandmother,

dignified as a king.

Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,

you can deal with whatever life brings you,

and when death comes, you are ready.

 

Best wishes to you!

[Mark Saltveit]

 

I see no reason for me to say anything yet.

 

Enjoy the discussion.

 

Touché!

A Taoist debate: two people smiling at each other (knowingly).

Edited March 15, 2011 by Mark Saltveit

[Mark Saltveit]

Actually, the essence of Buddhism is the alleviation of self-imposed, distorted views of dualistic projections. This does not mean that Buddhism teaches that all is One. What it means is that when Two is seen and grasped at, or rejected for that matter, it follows that One will arise in the mind... some want to cling to this One, and say this is the all, whereas there will be those who refute this and say there is no One, there is only the All. Fundamentally, such distinctions arise due to the grasping of Two. When the grasping nature of self is transcended, then neither One (singularity) nor Two (multiplicity) needs to be asserted nor negated. What remains then? So the nature of life itself is not suffering, as many seem to misunderstand, but it is the grasping after things that by nature is ungraspable that brings about an illusion of suffering (cravings for permanency).

 

Buddhist teachers often discourage the wasting of one's energy to argue trivialities about things that are too vague and too complex for a mind to fathom - instead, they would encourage mindfulness, loving kindness and compassion to be cultivated, and then integrated into one's daily life. Such useful practices are within everyone's reach, and will lead to the extinction of negative emotions and habitual tendencies.

 

What does it matter if all is One, or not? What is more crucial is to watch and discern how one thinks, speak and act towards self and others, and regard others with the same kind of respect and affection as one would regard one's parents. This sort of attitude engenders the development of tolerance, understanding, shared ideals, and positive participation in Life. And we all need such qualities by the truckloads. Naturally, there are some who have major issues with their parents... they were brought up abused, neglected, given away for adoption etc. Well, then these are all the more reasons, according to Buddhist teachings, to quickly invite more loving kindness and tolerance into one's view of self, so that healing and transformation can be effected.

 

I know that Buddhism eventually can get somewhere close to Taoist non-dualism, if you squint right or practice it a certain way. But in the deepest essence of the philosophy, there is good and bad; enlightenment or not, grasping or not grasping, teacher who understands deep things vs. follower who should settle for compassion because they can't fathom the deep stuff, in your terms. Buddhism does not love the unenlightened world, it beckons those in it to a better reality.

 

Fundamentally, Buddhism is a story about a savior who came to show us a better way (to understand the world, to live). It's about human thought, speech, action, etc. that is wrong, and how to make it right. Taoism is a philosophical understanding of a world that ultimately doesn't give much of a rat's ass about humans, but flows a certain way that we can't grasp by using words and ideas, but might get sort of closer to via intuition and (arguably) other techniques. It sounds harsh, but the Tao itself brings humor which tends to cure the harshness. Buddhism preaches compassion and lacks humor; Taoism, if anything, mocks charity, but makes cruelty seem absurd and pompous to the point where one naturally tends to be like a kindly (but sometimes prickly) grandmother.

 

(Obviously this is all my personal take, but that's OK because I'm right. ;-) )

[Marblehead]

 

A Taoist debate: two people smiling at each other.

 

 

I like that!!!

[Marblehead]

(Obviously this is all my personal take, but that's OK because I'm right. ;-) )

 

Hehehe. Yes, but you are also wrong. Can't have one without the other.

 

Taoism is a philosophical understanding of a world that ultimately doesn't give much of a rat's ass about humans,

 

I have said that somewhere myself. I know it sounds course but that's life. Even evolution sometimes leads to extinction.

[lazy cloud]

Hehehe. Yes, but you are also wrong. Can't have one without the other.

 

 

 

I have said that somewhere myself. I know it sounds course but that's life. Even evolution sometimes leads to extinction.

In 99.99% of the time extinction will happen. So i agree that sometimes it will happen.

[whynaut]

From my perspective, Buddhism can be seen as both the logical extension of Daoism and its complete opposite.

 

Daoism stresses the point, "one thing and ten thousand things," this is to say that every thing in the universe is a part of some grander thing. To use a metaphor, imagine shaping forms out of clay. Though each form may seem distinct, they are actually all part of the same clay. At the highest level of Daoism, all things can be seen as uniform. All things become one. It is only our flawed perception that attempts to put things into discrete categories and say that they are different.

 

Buddhism seems to take this one step further. If all things are one, and our reality is actually just based on these flawed perceptions, then can this reality be said to exist at all? Reality here seems like only a construction of our own minds (i.e. reality is an illusion). Perhaps, reality then is not the flawed shaping of forms on the naturally shapeless clay, but actually the flawed attempt at creating new images on the naturally blank piece of paper. In this case, all things are not one. All things are nothing.

 

What makes these two ideas opposite is that when Buddhism says, "reality is an illusion", it creates a sort of dualism: the true nothing vs. the illusion of reality. Daoism, on the other hand, cannot abide by dualism, "all things are one".

 

This can lead to contention on both sides, while at the same time, ideas from both seem to flow in and out of each other seamlessly.

 

This is how I've always thought of it anyway.

[Baguakid]

Buddhism is saturated with religion..

[Marblehead]

This is how I've always thought of it anyway.

 

Interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

[2netis]

From my perspective, Buddhism can be seen as both the logical extension of Daoism and its complete opposite.

 

Daoism stresses the point, "one thing and ten thousand things," this is to say that every thing in the universe is a part of some grander thing. To use a metaphor, imagine shaping forms out of clay. Though each form may seem distinct, they are actually all part of the same clay. At the highest level of Daoism, all things can be seen as uniform. All things become one. It is only our flawed perception that attempts to put things into discrete categories and say that they are different.

 

Buddhism seems to take this one step further. If all things are one, and our reality is actually just based on these flawed perceptions, then can this reality be said to exist at all? Reality here seems like only a construction of our own minds (i.e. reality is an illusion). Perhaps, reality then is not the flawed shaping of forms on the naturally shapeless clay, but actually the flawed attempt at creating new images on the naturally blank piece of paper. In this case, all things are not one. All things are nothing.

 

What makes these two ideas opposite is that when Buddhism says, "reality is an illusion", it creates a sort of dualism: the true nothing vs. the illusion of reality. Daoism, on the other hand, cannot abide by dualism, "all things are one".

 

This can lead to contention on both sides, while at the same time, ideas from both seem to flow in and out of each other seamlessly.

 

This is how I've always thought of it anyway.

 

Many sincere thanks for your thoughts.

 

For anyone who would like a bit more on this Buddhist “non-existence” idea, I offer this brief and entirely inadequate little bit of info:

 

Buddhism grew out of Vedanta - or rather out of the Buddha's dissatisfaction with the priest's exclusive practices of the time in India. Advaita Vedanta is a later non-dual evolution of Vedanta. Buddha's teachings eventually trickled into China as primarily Mahayana Buddhism. They gained broad interest when Bodhidharma (possibly a mythical figure) brought both a martial arts form (he was a warrior prince from India) and highly evolved Buddhist meditation methods to China in about 500 CE. He became the first patriarch of Zen - at Shaolin. He has only one inheritor of the lineage bowl and robe but from there Chan Buddhism took off quite fast as it adapted to and merged with existing Taoist philosophy. This became Chan or a little later "Zen" in Japan. In some circles, Chan/Zen is an absolute heresy and is not even considered proper Buddhism.

 

The original or Theravada Buddhists thought that one is responsible for ones own cessation of suffering (enlightenment) and for that one only. As the Mahayana got going it was recognized that the reality of enlightenment is not a personal thing at all. It also recognized that there is no difference or division between some enlightened world and this very one. Only the knowing it is so, that there is no difference, is the difference. This is an awakening which does not rest on the idea that life is an illusion to be seen through and which must be then totally discarded. Mahayana sees that This Is It. Just as it is. Mahayana finds that it is both the emptiness of all the form of life and the fullness of the forms of life, taken together, that actually describes awakening fully. THIS IS IT, AS IT IS and it is incredibly so. The Buddha said that it is like a dream, a phantom, lightening bolt and a bubble in the stream. And there is naught else! Nothing any more or less sacred or important or discoverable than what is right here right now! END OF SEARCH.

 

There are several Mahayana sutras which are important to Chan Buddhists because they describe this in a kind of detail not readily found in the somewhat more symbolic language of the Tao-Te Ching. The understanding is present in the TTC but I find that the Taoists who intuitively understand this are somewhat less able to express it as so. (it's just my experience...) And also, many Buddhists are too often drowning in emptiness - thinking that every thing is empty, end of story, get over it. It is just not so when understood in the Mahayana. The Buddha himself warned about this - as nihilism. In this is way it is called the middle way between the extremes of nothingness and something-ness. It all looks the same – its just all in the understanding of what one is “looking at” and who is doing the looking . AS the Zen people say; "Nothing Hidden"

 

Here's a few zen sayings which point to the truth of the Mahayana in which emptiness depends on form which depends on emptiness. A Taoist understanding if ever there was one! To stay with emptiness alone is no less dissatisfying than to stick with form alone. In learning this as a practice, the first thing is to try to see through form and understand why. When done, emptiness is recognized, and maybe, even the sense of a self that has found it may be disintegrating somewhat.....but don't stop there. An amazing realization is in ready to be uncovered – right in one's own pocket - or backyard - or the supermarket.....

 

---These quotes describe some understanding as the two come back together as the All That Is.

 

“First there are mountains and rivers

then there are no mountains and rivers

then there mountains and rivers again.”

~Zen saying

 

“If you understand, things are just as they are.

If you do not understand, things are just as they are.”

~Zen saying

 

---On the practice of getting rid of something - such as form (the world) - which would employ the pursuit of something such as “emptiness”:

 

"Make no effort to work or to renounce: all effort is bondage."

~Ramana Maharshi

 

"If you seek the truth in some special way, you will gain a path. This is to lose the truth which is hidden in the path. If you seek truth without any special way of seeking, it is found as it really is.... and it is life itself.

~Meister Eckhart

 

“Truth is a pathless land”.

~J Krishnamurti

 

“Inside every human being there is an authentic person that has no position, rank, standing or path.”

~Chan Mster Linji

 

So none of this leaves any place to stand or to hang on to – including non-existence. “ The Tao that can be spoken (or practiced) is not the Tao.” The Tao is not emptiness or non existence either

 

This leaves what the original Chan masters sometimes offered as HuaTou dialogue as a method for understanding. Such dialogue is not complete without the acknowledgment of What Is also in the perceptions of consciousness, as form, as intrinsic complete IS-ness. This is “suchness” or “thussnes”. In Buddhism this understanding is outlined in the Mahayana Diamond Sutra and others.

 

The Mahayana Buddhist vow is to “Save all sentient beings.” Obviously impossible. An yet there is a way to recognize what this means. It might be expressed as:

 

If you do understand, then saving all sentient beings is impossible.

If you don't understand, then saving all sentient beings is impossible.

 

So...what is understood? It's not nearly so simple as just abiding in emptiness and, at the same time, is even easier and much more 'complete' that that.

 

To take a stand in either emptiness or in form is to ascribe to a religion, path, a place to stand from which to make religious pronouncements of doctrine. To make the claim that Buddhism is a religion is to make a religious claim based in an unconscious religion - a common mistake.

 

And yes I am sure there are much better ways of expressing this. If you know, then please point the way!

 

Best wishes.

 

Edited

 

I just read some of the BKF interview and I was reminded of something that relates to this idea of the desirability of 'no place to stand'. My own satisfaction with Buddhist practice and study has been in the exposure of the trance like hypnosis we all are floating in until we wake up to it. Personally, I think it is absolutely important to recognize what that trance is and how it is induced - self or otherwise. (For a good look at transparently induced trance induction, check out Effie Chow videos on Youtube. She could teach Bandler and Grinder a thing or two. ) It is not always necessarily a bad thing, but one should have the choice. Constantly feeling compelled to choose one or another stance or ideology or philosophy - including 'Buddhism', because it is thought to be better than the previous one, is a never ending proposition and is actually like a ball and chain. No clue at all where he gets the idea that Buddhists are less interested in living the here and now. Maybe I just didn't understand what he said.

 

Also was mildly amused at BKF's assessment of the lack of naturalness and humor in Buddhism. I'll grant him his experience, and Tentai is sometimes rather sternly serious, and yet the funniest most irreverent people I know are Zen priests, Buddhists in general and the very funniest is a Tendai monk. So sad this has been his experience with Buddhism because it certainly is not mine. I cannot compare to Taoist priests and even if I could, well, that would just be choosing a place to stand for a comparison that makes for more attachment or aversion. Respectfully.....

Edited March 16, 2011 by 2netis

[adept]

Many sincere thanks for your thoughts.

 

For anyone who would like a bit more on this Buddhist “non-existence” idea, I offer this brief and entirely inadequate little bit of info:

 

Buddhism grew out of Vedanta - or rather out of the Buddha's dissatisfaction with the priest's exclusive practices of the time in India. Advaita Vedanta is a later non-dual evolution of Vedanta. Buddha's teachings eventually trickled into China as primarily Mahayana Buddhism. They gained broad interest when Bodhidharma (possibly a mythical figure) brought both a martial arts form (he was a warrior prince from India) and highly evolved Buddhist meditation methods to China in about 500 CE. He became the first patriarch of Zen - at Shaolin. He has only one inheritor of the lineage bowl and robe but from there Chan Buddhism took off quite fast as it adapted to and merged with existing Taoist philosophy. This became Chan or a little later "Zen" in Japan. In some circles, Chan/Zen is an absolute heresy and is not even considered proper Buddhism.

 

The original or Theravada Buddhists thought that one is responsible for ones own cessation of suffering (enlightenment) and for that one only. As the Mahayana got going it was recognized that the reality of enlightenment is not a personal thing at all. It also recognized that there is no difference or division between some enlightened world and this very one. Only the knowing it is so, that there is no difference, is the difference. This is an awakening which does not rest on the idea that life is an illusion to be seen through and which must be then totally discarded. Mahayana sees that This Is It. Just as it is. Mahayana finds that it is both the emptiness of all the form of life and the fullness of the forms of life, taken together, that actually describes awakening fully. THIS IS IT, AS IT IS and it is incredibly so. The Buddha said that it is like a dream, a phantom, lightening bolt and a bubble in the stream. And there is naught else! Nothing any more or less sacred or important or discoverable than what is right here right now! END OF SEARCH.

 

There are several Mahayana sutras which are important to Chan Buddhists because they describe this in a kind of detail not readily found in the somewhat more symbolic language of the Tao-Te Ching. The understanding is present in the TTC but I find that the Taoists who intuitively understand this are somewhat less able to express it as so. (it's just my experience...) And also, many Buddhists are too often drowning in emptiness - thinking that every thing is empty, end of story, get over it. It is just not so when understood in the Mahayana. The Buddha himself warned about this - as nihilism. In this is way it is called the middle way between the extremes of nothingness and something-ness. It all looks the same – its just all in the understanding of what one is “looking at” and who is doing the looking . AS the Zen people say; "Nothing Hidden"

 

Here's a few zen sayings which point to the truth of the Mahayana in which emptiness depends on form which depends on emptiness. A Taoist understanding if ever there was one! To stay with emptiness alone is no less dissatisfying than to stick with form alone. In learning this as a practice, the first thing is to try to see through form and understand why. When done, emptiness is recognized, and maybe, even the sense of a self that has found it may be disintegrating somewhat.....but don't stop there. An amazing realization is in ready to be uncovered – right in one's own pocket - or backyard - or the supermarket.....

 

---These quotes describe some understanding as the two come back together as the All That Is.

 

“First there are mountains and rivers

then there are no mountains and rivers

then there mountains and rivers again.”

~Zen saying

 

“If you understand, things are just as they are.

If you do not understand, things are just as they are.”

~Zen saying

 

---On the practice of getting rid of something - such as form (the world) - which would employ the pursuit of something such as “emptiness”:

 

"Make no effort to work or to renounce: all effort is bondage."

~Ramana Maharshi

 

"If you seek the truth in some special way, you will gain a path. This is to lose the truth which is hidden in the path. If you seek truth without any special way of seeking, it is found as it really is.... and it is life itself.

~Meister Eckhart

 

“Truth is a pathless land”.

~J Krishnamurti

 

“Inside every human being there is an authentic person that has no position, rank, standing or path.”

~Chan Mster Linji

 

So none of this leaves any place to stand or to hang on to – including non-existence. “ The Tao that can be spoken (or practiced) is not the Tao.” The Tao is not emptiness or non existence either

 

This leaves what the original Chan masters sometimes offered as HuaTou dialogue as a method for understanding. Such dialogue is not complete without the acknowledgment of What Is also in the perceptions of consciousness, as form, as intrinsic complete IS-ness. This is “suchness” or “thussnes”. In Buddhism this understanding is outlined in the Mahayana Diamond Sutra and others.

 

The Mahayana Buddhist vow is to “Save all sentient beings.” Obviously impossible. An yet there is a way to recognize what this means. It might be expressed as:

 

If you do understand, then saving all sentient beings is impossible.

If you don't understand, then saving all sentient beings is impossible.

 

So...what is understood? It's not nearly so simple as just abiding in emptiness and, at the same time, is even easier and much more 'complete' that that.

 

To take a stand in either emptiness or in form is to ascribe to a religion, path, a place to stand from which to make religious pronouncements of doctrine. To make the claim that Buddhism is a religion is to make a religious claim based in an unconscious religion - a common mistake.

 

And yes I am sure there are much better ways of expressing this. If you know, then please point the way!

 

Best wishes.

 

Edited

 

I just read some of the BKF interview and I was reminded of something that relates to this idea of the desirability of 'no place to stand'. My own satisfaction with Buddhist practice and study has been in the exposure of the trance like hypnosis we all are floating in until we wake up to it. Personally, I think it is absolutely important to recognize what that trance is and how it is induced - self or otherwise. (For a good look at transparently induced trance induction, check out Effie Chow videos on Youtube. She could teach Bandler and Grinder a thing or two. ) It is not always necessarily a bad thing, but one should have the choice. Constantly feeling compelled to choose one or another stance or ideology or philosophy - including 'Buddhism', because it is thought to be better than the previous one, is a never ending proposition and is actually like a ball and chain. No clue at all where he gets the idea that Buddhists are less interested in living the here and now. Maybe I just didn't understand what he said.

 

Also was mildly amused at BKF's assessment of the lack of naturalness and humor in Buddhism. I'll grant him his experience, and Tentai is sometimes rather sternly serious, and yet the funniest most irreverent people I know are Zen priests, Buddhists in general and the very funniest is a Tendai monk. So sad this has been his experience with Buddhism because it certainly is not mine. I cannot compare to Taoist priests and even if I could, well, that would just be choosing a place to stand for a comparison that makes for more attachment or aversion. Respectfully.....

 

Awesome !

One of the best posts I've ever read here on TaoBums.

These 2 books may well interest you.

Edited March 16, 2011 by adept

[Jetsun]

No clue at all where he gets the idea that Buddhists are less interested in living the here and now. Maybe I just didn't understand what he said.

 

Also was mildly amused at BKF's assessment of the lack of naturalness and humor in Buddhism. I'll grant him his experience, and Tentai is sometimes rather sternly serious, and yet the funniest most irreverent people I know are Zen priests, Buddhists in general and the very funniest is a Tendai monk. So sad this has been his experience with Buddhism because it certainly is not mine. I cannot compare to Taoist priests and even if I could, well, that would just be choosing a place to stand for a comparison that makes for more attachment or aversion. Respectfully.....

 

Yes I was surprised he said those things too, each has their own experience I guess but the focus of Buddhism is living in the present moment. Also the lack of humour in Buddhism I have hard Taoists mention a few times before but if you see someone like the Dalai Lama he is full of humour and laughter, for example if you go up to him and you have a beard even if you are a high lama he will pull it like a cheeky school child just for a joke.

 

Edited March 16, 2011 by Jetsun