Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Stosh]

Actually it doesn't in my opinion. Westerners have a history of trying to impose their own views on other cultures and it started in the middle ages with the crusades. Much of it has nothing to do with humanitarian sentiment, but rather as a way for us to grab a piece of the pie. We send people in to westernize a country and then set it up so that these countries are essentially supplying the west with goods at a fraction of their actual value. It's mostly about money, sometimes religion, and very rarely humanitarian. Alwayson, I would say India is becoming more westernized, but it's not quite there yet. I would say they're a few decades away from the problems endemic in the states. Aaron

And yet there are humanitarian things done.

The only measure of the benefit or harm another culture offers, is whether it is embraced.Was India better off with suttee? Is asia better off zenophobic? How can I possibly know in any other way? I can't measure the welfare of them , they have to do that estimation themselves.

[voidisyinyang]

And this shift is part of that transition you were talking about from lunar/matriarchy to solar/patriarchy? And with the solar/patriarchy came agriculture, the infinity containing mathematics, war, rape, ejaculation addiction, and all that other jazz?

 

I found that video you posted a few days ago where that lady was talking about the connection between solar worship and the Christ myths.

 

Yeah I posted already on the origins of this -- actually the vid I posted in this thread visits the site from 10,000 BCE and then from 7000 BCE -- and -- anyway you get an anthropocentric focus of humans when there is an attempt to "tame" the wildness - that's why the wild bull was sacred at first since it could not be tamed. The goat was the first domesticated animal. But agriculture came before pastoralism and there was desertification from making the houses water proof using lime from burning the forests.

 

So yeah ecological destruction started early -- but this was a particular form of rectilinear-based agriculture and so then the plow with domestication of animals, etc. and it spread worldwide as Western ecological imperialism -- in Europe it intensified and then spread worldwide.

 

 

The Bantus used iron technology from the Nubians starting around 700 BCE although it was for hoes, not plowbased

farming, and the Bantus were still matrilineal. The iron technology, also used for clearing the forest, was

made in secret alchemical rituals by the blacksmiths.

[Aaron]

And this shift is part of that transition you were talking about from lunar/matriarchy to solar/patriarchy? And with the solar/patriarchy came agriculture, the infinity containing mathematics, war, rape, ejaculation addiction, and all that other jazz?

 

I found that video you posted a few days ago where that lady was talking about the connection between solar worship and the Christ myths.

 

From what I've studied, most anthropologists have dismissed the feminine/matriarchy to masculine/patriarchy paradigm because there's no concrete evidence to support it. Robert Graves was one of the historians that helped start the mess, with his whole Diana cults, women sacrificing men, etc. After much examination, several decades later we realize that a few statues of women and the practices of a small minority of aboriginal people is not enough evidence to support these claims.

 

For instance, you would think if all this was true, that it would've had some legacy that would've been remembered by later generations and eventually have been recorded for posterity, if for no other other reason than as warning to the men who didn't want to be sacrificed, but what we find is nothing to support that anything like this ever existed on a large scale. Of course it's nice to have theories, but that's all they are, theories. There's a reason the vast majority of the cultures on the face of the earth were patriarchal, and that's simply because men were expected to protect and provide for the women. In practice men are out in the fields as often as women in nearly every culture. In practice men managed the majority of the heavy field work and women managed the home and children, because the women were expected to feed the children and care for them. Of course we can decide that this is wrong, that women shouldn't care for the children, you know, send them off at age two to preschool, then kindergarten, then to grade school and high school, essentially allow the government to raise the children, rather than the parent, because in the end a child educated by the government will be more likely to do what the government tells them to.

 

Again, if you think all of this is altruistic, you're way off base. I'm absolutely positive this has nothing to do with Taoism or Buddhism, but it is an interesting topic. I just wish people really understood what they're talking about.

 

 

Aaron

Edited May 12, 2013 by Aaron

[Maddie]

From what I've studied, most anthropologists have dismissed the feminine/matriarchy to masculine/patriarchy paradigm because there's no concrete evidence to support it. Robert Graves was one of the historians that helped start the mess, with his whole Diana cults, women sacrificing men, etc. After much examination, several decades later we realize that a few statues of women and the practices of a small minority of aboriginal people is not enough evidence to support these claims.

 

For instance, you would think if all this was true, that it would've had some legacy that would've been remembered by later generations and eventually have been recorded for posterity, if for no other other reason than as warning to the men who didn't want to be sacrificed, but what we find is nothing to support that anything like this ever existed on a large scale. Of course it's nice to have theories, but that's all they are, theories. There's a reason the vast majority of the cultures on the face of the earth were patriarchal, and that's simply because men were expected to protect and provide for the women. In practice men are out in the fields as often as women in nearly every culture. In practice men managed the majority of the heavy field work and women managed the home and children, because the women were expected to feed the children and care for them. Of course we can decide that this is wrong, that women shouldn't care for the children, you know, send them off at age two to preschool, then kindergarten, then to grade school and high school, essentially allow the government to raise the children, rather than the parent, because in the end a child educated by the government will be more likely to do what the government tells them to.

 

Again, if you think all of this is altruistic, you're way off base. I'm absolutely positive this has nothing to do with Taoism or Buddhism, but it is an interesting topic. I just wish people really understood what they're talking about.

 

 

Aaron

 

Ah yes your probably wondering how a thread about Buddhism vs Taoism lead to this. Well the jist of it is that it was being discussed how Taoism is unique in that its older than Buddhism and came from the pre-solar/patriarchal period of mankind while Buddhism being younger came out of the Brahman culture that had already become solar/patriarchal. Weather you agree or not, at least that was how this topic came to be discussed. Personally I find it fascinating.

Edited May 12, 2013 by dmattwads

[voidisyinyang]

So what we have are chimps who cooperate but aren’t very

tolerant, and bonobos who are very tolerant but don’t really

cooperate in the wild. What probably happened six million

years ago, when hominids split from the ancestor we share with

chimpanzees and bonobos, is that we became very tolerant, and

this allowed us to cooperate in entirely new ways. Without this

heightened tolerance, we would not be the species we are today.

 

http://www.vanessawoods.net/pdf/woods_hare_2010.pdf

[RongzomFan]

Buddhism and Jainism came out of the Sramana culture, not Brahmanism.

[Maddie]

Buddhism and Jainism came out of the Sramana culture, not Brahmanism.

yea sorry that's what I meant, I'm tired lol

[voidisyinyang]

Buddhism and Jainism came out of the Sramana culture, not Brahmanism.

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/16163-taoism-vs-buddhism/page-34#entry429481

 

We already discussed that! haha.

[voidisyinyang]

yea sorry that's what I meant, I'm tired lol

 

 

But Buddhism should be seen as more of a reform movement within the milieu of the educated religious people - who were mostly Brahmans - rather than a rival movement from outside. Thus, although the Buddha himself was a kshatriya the largest number of monks in the early movement were of Brahman origin.

[RongzomFan]

"These remarks confirm our impression that Magadha-and by extension, Greater Magadha-was not part of the land which the Brahmins considered their own during the Vedic period and, we may add, right up to a time close to the beginning of the Common Era. We may see this as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that Greater Magadha had a culture of its own which was different from the culture of the authors of the Vedic and early post-Vedic literature.....It was also the culture of those who founded, or joined, various religious movements, among which Buddhism, Jainsim, and Ajivikism are best known."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=4GNG5KuH73QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Johannes+Bronkhorst&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gCGPUeW9O6rG0AGVqoGgAw&ved=0CDoQuwUwAg

[RongzomFan]

"Buddhism, we are often told, was a reaction against Vedic Brahmanism.....I do not share this opinion."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=BaX58-E5-3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Johannes+Bronkhorst&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gCGPUeW9O6rG0AGVqoGgAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw

 

This is a top scholar. And the book dates to 2011.

Edited May 12, 2013 by alwayson

[voidisyinyang]

"Buddhism, we are often told, was a reaction against Vedic Brahmanism.....I do not share this opinion."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=BaX58-E5-3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Johannes+Bronkhorst&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gCGPUeW9O6rG0AGVqoGgAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw

 

This is a top scholar. And the book dates to 2011.

 

he says in the very beginning...."when the Buddha was born."

 

Any proof for that?

[voidisyinyang]

"These remarks confirm our impression that Magadha-and by extension, Greater Magadha-was not part of the land which the Brahmins considered their own during the Vedic period and, we may add, right up to a time close to the beginning of the Common Era. We may see this as a confirmation of our earlier conclusion that Greater Magadha had a culture of its own which was different from the culture of the authors of the Vedic and early post-Vedic literature.....It was also the culture of those who founded, or joined, various religious movements, among which Buddhism, Jainsim, and Ajivikism are best known."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=4GNG5KuH73QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Johannes+Bronkhorst&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gCGPUeW9O6rG0AGVqoGgAw&ved=0CDoQuwUwAg

 

 

So this one corroborates what I was saying about the Brahmins being a rectlinear culture with the pre-Vedic being circular based -- on page 5 -- so he is saying because they were round they were Buddhists.....

 

haha.

[Apech]

So this one corroborates what I was saying about the Brahmins being a rectlinear culture with the pre-Vedic being circular based -- on page 5 -- so he is saying because they were round they were Buddhists.....

 

haha.

 

 

Surely the point is that India is a vast and diverse country which incorporates a variety of cultural and religious expression. If you make generalisations based on one or two facts or observations then they are bound to be wrong. This would include attitudes towards women. The same is true of America as well. So you cannot say because this occurs somewhere this is true of 'India'.

 

The problem I find with western academics who study these things is that unless they are very, very good objective thinkers then their own cultural heritage somehow imposes itself on the subject matter. This is the point I made above somewhere about the Oxford group who study Buddhism .... it is as if Anglican theology has swallowed up Buddhism and turned it into a reflection of their own cultural attitudes ... hence the 'secular' and 'atheist' Buddhism of Peacock and Batchelor. As if the last 2500 years of practitioners and commentators can be washed away as non-Buddhist because they accept karma, rebirth and so on, or developed Buddhist philosophy in ways that the academics deem unacceptable.

 

For me Buddhism differs from all other religious views because it starts in a different place. Not with the issue of creation or ontology but with the experience of existing in a confused state, what this means and how to deal with it, and most importantly the key idea that seeing things as they really are brings liberation. Because of this perspective it is very adaptive to whatever cultural environment it fonds itself in ... hence to different forms of Buddhism ... without losing its key values and principles.

 

Perhaps of the non-Buddhist systems I think Taoism is perhaps the most sublime and also looks to the heart of the nature of things in a very direct way. I think this is why Buddhism and Taoism can be symbiotic and not one versus the other so much. I know many Taoist masters quote Buddhist ideas without contradiction and we have the development of Zen and so forth historically.

[C T]

he says in the very beginning...."when the Buddha was born."

 

Any proof for that?

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/i/019pho0001007s3u00634000.html

 

Since its Sunday , a little bonus of a humorous Sutra of the Leaves written by Baksheesh the Madman:

http://www.american-buddha.com/sutra.leaves.htm

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/i/019pho0001007s3u00634000.html

 

Since its Sunday , a little bonus of a humorous Sutra of the Leaves written by Baksheesh the Madman:

http://www.american-buddha.com/sutra.leaves.htm

 

so obviously Buddhism did not practice human sacrifice but it was built upon this culture.

 

And so how is it related - through the mathematics of monotheism:

 

 

What was the ritual scene for the square buildings? “the central ancient rite was a creation rite

involving the sacrifice of a man:

a man is killed and the world is created from his body.” In the

footnotes Seidenberg notes that “house-building spreads more easily than sacrifice”—ah, so

quaint yet illuminating! So from UC Berkeley math professor Seidenberg and Lord Raglan we

have promotion of a secret “squaring of the circle” through mass ritual sacrifice technology.

 

So I had mentioned before that Ashoka utilized new iron technology to have his original new imperial victories.

 

This is the standard routine - conquer and then "PAX" domestically within the empire as long as people follow the rules. So the question remains what is the source of these pillars? The logical inference is that they were from the Brahmins and so I do a search and this appears to be the answer:

 

 

 

Varanasi and the River Ganges - Trips into India

tripsintoindia.com/categoryblog/94-varanasi-and-the-river-ganges.html‎

A group

of Brahmins

who live by the sea do their meditations and ascetic practices

....

After prying apart

heaven

and

earth

, establishing the sky

between

them and

.....

there is a connection

between

Lat Bhairav, the Qutb Minar, the

Ashokan pillars

,

...

Indra

pillars

— which kept the middle

space

(the

earth

)

separated from

the

...

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=H3lUIIYxWkEC&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=indra+pillars+and+ashoka+pillars&source=bl&ots=xdaD3S5VfG&sig=4aoFoVmDoC-a_0PlHBo9d2jTguo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4YWPUYibHoyxrgGIroDoBg&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=indra%20pillars%20and%20ashoka%20pillars&f=false

 

So good academic overview on the Ashoka pillars being influenced by Greek and Persian and Brahman culture.....

 

It's all the same -- the patriarchal "divide and average" rectilinear Solar priest cultures.

 

Images of Indian Goddesses: Myths, Meanings, and Models

By Madhu Bazaz Wangu

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=3SScwifhldQC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=indra+pillars+and+brahmins+and+ashoka+pillars&source=bl&ots=hyyz-nBrTg&sig=IkwEeGFqDv1L49SBWP47n3cNBqg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9IaPUZyKEcSWrAGX24DAAw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=indra%20pillars%20and%20brahmins%20and%20ashoka%20pillars&f=false

 

Confirmation -

 

 

"Ashoka in consultation with the Brahmins revived the ancient symbol of the sacred pillar...."

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/apac/photocoll/i/019pho0001007s3u00634000.html

 

Since its Sunday , a little bonus of a humorous Sutra of the Leaves written by Baksheesh the Madman:

http://www.american-buddha.com/sutra.leaves.htm

 

thanks -- I was reading the book that alwayson linked and indeed I read about this pillar from Asoka and I wondered about it as that seemed to be the only "evidence" presented. Then sure enough you present it as the evidence! haha.

 

 

It was originally thought that Ashoka was the first to erect pillars, however recent interpretations have shown that it is more likely that the edicts were inscribed on pillars that had been sculpted in the preceding centuries, and already had religious connotations.

 

So this indicates that Ashoka spreading Buddhism on these pillars was like the Christian priests building churchs on pagan religious sites.

 

The pillars.....

 

 

The pillars were imbued with cosmological significance; each symbolised the world's axis, the separation between earth and heaven.

 

Now this last phrase seems very innocent but it's really not at all!

 

the separation between earth and heaven.

 

This is amazing because it is the key phrase in the work of ritual geometry mathematician Abraham Seidenberg who was also promoting mass ritual sacrifice of the Solar priests as the origins of Freemasonry.

 

Seriously!!! You don't believe me? haha.

 

Hold on.....

 

 

Seidenberg has been given prominent attention in recent Advaita Vedanta research because he

documents the origins of the Pythagorean Theorem as far back as 3,000 B.C. in Vedic India – for

ritual sacrifice altars. In several essays in prominent academic journals, Seidenberg states that the

concept of incommensurability or paradox of the infinite, was established worldwide through

human sacrifice altar rituals that maintained creation through the cosmic separation of heaven

and earth. (versus the union of heaven and earth by humanity -- the explicit goal of true

Pythagorean-Taoist harmonics and OM nondualism).

 

That's from my Actual Matrix Plan expose published online in 2001 -- http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_matrix43.htm

 

Still think maybe it's a fluke?

 

 

The research of the Freemason-Theosophist academics is based on ratio theory that promotes the

Indo-European separation of heaven and earth by mass ritual human sacrifice and destructive

technology for the all-seeing eye.

 

 

Also

Professor Abraham Seidenberg's article “The Ritual Origins of Geometry” and his several essays

in the journal Folklore promoting the separation of heaven and earth and human sacrifice as the

foundations for social engineering.

 

So those are quotes from my Actual Matrix Plan.

 

But now I will provide you with more details.

 

 

Because of the “separation of heaven and earth” – because as the trajectory

of tantric technology continues there is a projection of the repressed oppression – there is a

deepening, a dredging, of the repressed sexual energy – in the lowest chakras – but this repressed

trauma is now projected as the most finicky consumer fetish. For example Tibetan monks will

check a newly dead person to see what part of their body gets cold last. If the feet gets cold last

then the person is going to hell and if the head gets cold last then the person is going to heaven.

This indicates where the spirit is leaving from the body – the upper or lower half of the body – so

that heaven and hell are holographic projections where the inner and outer reality are interwoven

from a timeless consciousness that we exist within.

 

See how I have it in quotes. That's from my book which is available online: pdf or scribd - just search "alchemy of rainbow heart music."

 

o.k.

 

 

 

 

[voidisyinyang]

So because the sublimation of consciousness in the West is the “right-hand path” with the

left-hand (tantra) path being an excuse – a target – for genocide (kill the witches, the natives,

etc. because they'll just get judged by God that much quicker -- hence the 1980s genocide in

Guatemala organized by evangelicals and evangelical Pat Robertson's recent call for Chavez’

assassination). Because of this reversal in the asymmetry of the vortex of energy there is a

fundamental

Separation of Heaven and Earth

.

 

and

 

 

Because of left-brain dominance science is controlled

by the “return of the repressed” through an externalization – the projection of the repressed

sex energy as inherently disharmonious relations – oppression through objectification. The

mathematics of science is not pure but is based on closed circular axioms stemming from

music ratios improperly defined against natural resonance. So as science progresses with

increased technology there is

an inherent “separation of heaven and earth”

through mass

ritual sacrifice.

 

and

 

 

Seidenberg’s argument is that there is a global myth using ritual sacrifice

derived from a secret organization using ritual geometry. His work, published in Folklore

Volume 94 issue #2, 1983; Vol. 80, 1969 and Vol. 70, 1959, is in collaboration with Lord Raglan

and is clearly a promotion of Freemasonry.

 

so what does Seidenberg say directly:

 

 

We start with the dual organization and the Creation ritual involving the

dismemberment of a sacrificial victim. The two sides in general play opposite or

complementary roles, and in elaboration of this dual nature of the ritual, one side

creates the things above, the other the things below. Each side is given the

appropriate part of the sacrificial victim,

the top half to the sky side, the bottom

half to the earth side.

 

and

 

 

To summarize it briefly, we have to recall an ancient principle or form of social

organization, the dual organization. In the dual organization, the community is

divided into two groups…. This ‘actual fact’ is the dual organization whose

‘diffusion in independent centers’ is presumably a natural phenomenon of the

same order as ‘diamonds are hard’ or ‘grass is green.’

 

Seidenberg's Freemasonic Lord Raglan colleague writes:

 

 

‘The main thesis is that the development of building practice and the ideas of

world-structure acted and reacted to each other.’ For example, at one point in the

development of architecture one finds square buildings held up by four posts, one

at each corner; correspondingly, one finds myths saying that the sky is square and

help up by four posts (or pillars, or supports of some kind), one at each corner.

Still earlier, one may conjecture, the cosmos was considered to be four-fold and

this gave rise to four posts.

The ritual scene was originally circular and was

divided into four quadrants as a result of the actions of a dual organization on it.

[RongzomFan]

Confirmation -

 

Yes after Buddhism emerged it interacted with Brahmanical culture.

 

Indeed Hinduism is a mix of Buddhism and Brahmanism.

[Aaron]

****************** MOD MSG ********************

This is a friendly reminder to keep conversation respectful and without insults. Several of the posts in the last few pages push the bounds of respectful dialogue and have drawn complaints from members involved in the discussion. Continued posts in this direction will impact the ability of this thread to continue within the main forum and may lead to disciplinary action against individual members who fail to remain civil. We appreciate your understanding.

**************** END MOD MSG ****************

 

Could you point out which comments were considered insulting? I reread the last several pages and found nothing that I would construe as a direct insult, derogatory, or inflammatory. It just amazes me that I start to post again and immediately there are Mod warnings about insults and such. In order to assuage my paranoia, could you please point out what comments were actually disrespectful or insulting.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I'm wondering if calling into question another person's knowledge or the validity of a topic in accordance with accepted anthropological and archaeological evidence is considered insulting? Should we instead say, "Well of course it's absolutely possible that Minney Mouse ruled over the ancient Peloponnesians, and I for one would never dissuade someone from believing such a thing, however, and this isn't meant to be insulting or anything, everyone I've ever talked to about this topic would disagree, hence it might not be true." Doh! I guess even that's insulting, I mean we are telling the person that Minney Mouse never ruled Peloponnesia. I am really at a loss here.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Aaron

[C T]

Could you point out which comments were considered insulting? I reread the last several pages and found nothing that I would construe as a direct insult, derogatory, or inflammatory.

Hmm...drama (again) eh? Just out of curiosity, i scanned the last few pages as well, and could not pick out any comments that were even near insulting or derogatory. Perhaps the mods can highlight to readers which particular comment(s) was deemed to have overstepped forum guidelines and needed pruning?

[voidisyinyang]

http://thetaobums.com/topic/16163-taoism-vs-buddhism/page-36#entry429713

 

I could only find this post that seems to have been "edited" -- i.e. no longer contains any information.

 

That was from May 8th.

Edited May 13, 2013 by pythagoreanfulllotus

[C T]

Its not the feminism I had a problem with.

 

Its the constant putting down of Indian culture by people who always get basic facts wrong when you check their sources.

 

**Indian culture spread to Afghanistan, China, southeast Asia and even Japan while also transporting the 1st major Indian religion, Buddhism.

 

As the center of this cultural empire we should get the same respect as the Roman Empire.

** I found this Wiki article (below) of the Romani people, especially the section on Religion, most interesting. The spread is indeed wide.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

 

It says the Romani people continued to practice Shaktism even after a thousand years of leaving India. However, this has since evolved, and now, the majority of Romanies are either Catholics or Muslims.

[Aaron]

The main post in question has already been edited by the member who wrote it. The message is appropriate to anyone on the boards though. It is not like we have told anyone that they cannot express their viewpoint on the matter, only to do it respectfully.That would be ridiculous and is a grossly unnecessary extrapolation of the message we delivered into this thread.

 

Well I guess my question would be, if the message was edited and no one else was making comments that were gravitating towards the necessity for moderation intervention, what was the need to post the warning? I think the more we govern with a heavy hand, the less freedom we allow the people. That's Taoism by the way, I can point out the passages that speak of it, but essentially the ideal kingdom is one where the people don't feel the hand of the emperor or king. In my opinion dealing with this in private first, then if nothing can be done, making a public statement, would've been more conducive to expressing freedom in the community, than making a blanket statement that caused others to wonder if they were doing something to necessitate moderation. That's just my opinion and it was not intended to be insulting or demeaning, but rather as an example of how to use Taoism to moderate the Tao Bums.

 

Aaron

Edited May 13, 2013 by Aaron

[Wu Ming Jen]

All those obstructed by the three obstacles of reification, nothingness, and emptiness are unable to reconcile the three teachings of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. This results in sectarian differences and disputes. Confucians criticize the nothingness of Taoism, Taoists criticize the emptiness of Buddhism, Buddhists criticize the path of Confucianism—and so it goes on endlessly, back and forth. They do not realize that the basis is really one, even though the doctrines may be different. The perception is divisive because they are obstructed by their principles.

 

These are Ancestor Lu's words. This is not a direct insult to anyone that may be obstructed.

 

The views expressed in this post are not affiliated with this poster.

 

You must be old enough to read to consume this product.

 

If you have blurriness or trouble reading see an eye doctor right away.

 

May contain sarcasm viewer discretion is advised.