Taoism Vs Buddhism

[xabir2005]

Zen asks the right question: "When the many are reduced to the one, to what shall the one be reduced?"

 

Om

Sky is blue, grass is green.

[ralis]

You're very welcome. Thanks for your interest!

 

It depends upon how deeply you take the view of impermanence. Most paths think that there is some inherent permanent God, consciousness, element, behind the appearance of everything. But Buddhism even sees that depth as impermanent and that the only permanence is making the view of impermanence permanent.

 

But yes, it should eventually be spontaneous insight after one understand it intellectually.

 

You insist that the Buddha is a permanent fixture in an infinite universe. Yet insist that nothing is permanent.

Edited November 19, 2010 by ralis

[ralis]

That is actually quite funny. Though, I'm drinking a Heineken right now.

 

I'm not a monk... LOL! I worked very, very hard today and deserve a little beer to calm my muscles. It's actually considered a medicine in moderation in Tibet.

 

Medicine? Several of my former employees told me that a shot of whiskey at night is great medicine. Their ability to perform on the job was always impaired! They always claimed they were moderate drinkers.

 

What you don't know is that Norbu was a very heavy drinker and smoker after he started teaching at the University of Naples. He was forced to stop due to health problems. Further, Trungpa drank from a bottle of Sake while teaching to the public. He claimed it was good medicine to kill the constant pain from injuries sustained in an auto accident. He was an alcoholic.

 

Why not do a Yantra Yoga series instead of drinking. Much healthier!

Edited November 19, 2010 by ralis

[Marblehead]

WoW! I got more than I bargained for. Hehehe.

 

Yes, we have had this discussion before. I am, therefore I think.

 

However, it is different when one realizes that the nature of reality is already non-dual by nature.

 

I did want to highlight this because I think it is important. But our brain functions according to dualistic concepts. However, yes, it is true that we can go beyond these dualistic concepts and see everything in its own truth and beauty.

 

 

Also, on another note: you think that thoughts and action imply an "I", but this is not so. Have you ever known what your next moment of thought will be? No, you will never, and can never know what the next moment of thought will be.

 

This is true only because we cannot see the future. Hey, it (the future) hasn't happened yet. How could we possibly see it?

 

But then I will argue that I can control my next thoughts. I can concentrate on a concepts and all following thoughs, or at least the greatest majority, will be consistent with the thought pattern.

 

But it is true, the past is written, the future hasn't happened yet, therefore all we have is the present moment. But even that is in the past by the time we recognize it. All we can do is react to what has happened - but we can't change it.

[Marblehead]

Sky is blue, grass is green.

 

Except on a cloudy winter day then the sky is shades of gray and the grass is brown.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vaj - we're talking about a different place of I AM. The place I'm talking about is the place that is formless, once you've made your way through the form of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. Your suggestion to study up isn't how the place is found. Maybe stop studying for a while, Vaj.

 

I know the state you're talking about, and if you did study what the Buddha taught, he also taught that the formless is not absolute and to think of it as absolute, or to interpret that experience as absolute, of which I've had more times than could be counted, would be a grave error if your goal is true liberation from samsaric recycling and unconscious rebirth.

 

Your view is more Hindu and the Buddha criticized this view in no uncertain terms.

 

Buddhism is not just a form, it's the elaboration of liberation from Samsara. It's goal is not falling into the trap of overarching oneness that absorbs beings at the end of a cosmic eon and then re-expresses them into the next cosmic eon, ignorantly and without memory of the previous cosmos, or universal life span.

 

What I'm talking about is far deeper than the meditative state of oneness.

 

The Buddha taught that one needs the right view. He also experienced this state of I AM and was taught that it was absolute by a prominent yogi of his time, but realized through deeper investigation that there is further to go. What he realized as dependent origination/emptiness is a deeply intuitive realization that transcends this idea that all paths come from one source and return to one source, that the formless is real and the forms are it's unreal expressions. This is not what the Buddha taught and does not lead to Buddhahood, but rather only formless bliss realms and high heaven realms that last many eons.

 

This is not a dogma, this is just how the cosmos works.

 

All you're experiencing in the I AM space is the illumination of one of the first layers of your unconscious where all impressions are in dormancy and the awareness for a time becomes free of formulated confinements. Then when the awareness comes back into conventionality it seems as if things are being constructed out of this experience of what seemed void and the mind naturally clings to this experience as a taste of "the source of all."

 

I do say, it is a very blissful and powerful experience, but one should go deeper into dependent origination and emptiness.

 

To create a supreme identity out of this, is to miss the boat. But, most traditions do this.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Aetherous]

Medicine?

 

One drink is actually considered a form of medicine, even in Western Medicine. More than one and it starts to be considered a form of poison.

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

 

There is no division of essence in reality itself. Words/thought place arbitrary labels on aspects of reality. Therefore the division between an apple and a chair and I (not the words but the reality towards which these words point) is not really present in reality itself, but only in thought. The essence which is manifest as apple chair and I is understood as essence rather the shapes and actions of its manifestations.. This could lead me to say that there is no 'I' but it could likewise lead me to say that there is no apple and no chair. There is just the essence of reality, which is everything. But the experience is happening from a certain point of view which is always the same point of view. 'I'/me/we refers to this point of view. There is no experience as a flower, there is only experience of a flower. There is only ever an experience as the awareness from this point of view of everything else. So, although in reality itself, everything may be one, the experience of reality is always as something, 'I', of itself and of everything else. 'I' refers to that consistent, unique, localised experience of reality.

 

Be well..

 

There is deeper. If you think or rather feel or identify that this "one" is the ultimate reality of everything and the true source of existence, this understanding and experience will gladly welcome you into it's arms for you to sleep in after the end of this universes' karmic expressions' time period. Or it might welcome you before this as you absorb into a blissful formless realm at the end of this life to lay dormant for a number of eons in a manifestation of your own experience that a formless essence is at the base of everything and is true, and ultimate, and is the home of everything. It's really just a space of dormancy though.

 

The Buddha had all these experiences you're talking about, and went deeper.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Wow! You almost got mystical on us there. That's the closest I've seen you come to that. Hehehe.

 

(Nice post though.)

 

I actually don't do much studying anymore and haven't for a number of years. Most everything I bring up here is just from memory and re-researching for the sake of what seems necessary to quote in the now.

 

I mostly like to read my mentors discussions and listen to my Rinpoches broadcasts and transmissions. I do plan on doing more studying though!

[Vajrahridaya]

That's bullshit. Five Precepts: Do not take intoxicants. A rationalization on your part, no matter what your teacher says. You lose clarity of mind after one drink, and making it a regular practice works against spiritual development. You're just attached to it, that's all. A serious Buddhist practitioner avoids intoxicants, the amateurs rationalize and drink.

 

Actually, Tantra has entirely different precepts, because of the level of developed awareness involved.

 

But, you're welcome to judge me. I just think that maybe you should study more Vajrayana because it has different precepts from Hinayana.

 

All precepts are relative, just like peoples internal responses to external stimuli is relative and not across the board absolutely one way or the other.

 

The Buddhas teachings on relative origination should decrees your tendency towards mental and experiential dogmas.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

I only ask: "How many of us can remain in this state for an extended period of time?"

 

 

 

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.

[Vajrahridaya]

I beg your pardon...? More projections, labels, assumptions, lecturing, misunderstandings, foot in mouth, etc..

 

Zen asks the right question: "When the many are reduced to the one, to what shall the one be reduced?"

 

Om

 

Much Zen got caught up in what appears to be a Zhentog interpretation of yogacara texts. Or the idea of an absolute oneness of everything, based upon a misinterpretation of experience and texts. Not all of Zen seems to have done this, or not all masters within Zen or Chan.

 

Anyway... you can have your view. It will make you happy for a long time.

 

Since you think of me the way you do, there's no point in debating with you.

[Vajrahridaya]

You insist that the Buddha is a permanent fixture in an infinite universe. Yet insist that nothing is permanent.

 

A Buddha attains permanence through a permanent insight into impermanence.

 

Seems contradictory, but it really isn't. You just need to go deeper into what dependent origination actually teaches.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Why not do a Yantra Yoga series instead of drinking. Much healthier!

 

Norbu has a glass of wine sometimes now and that's it.

 

Me? Why not stay out of my personal life Ralis. You should quit gambling!

 

p.s.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

WoW! I got more than I bargained for. Hehehe.

 

Yes, we have had this discussion before. I am, therefore I think.

 

 

 

I did want to highlight this because I think it is important. But our brain functions according to dualistic concepts. However, yes, it is true that we can go beyond these dualistic concepts and see everything in its own truth and beauty.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Vajrahridaya]

Except on a cloudy winter day then the sky is shades of gray and the grass is brown.

 

:lol:

[3bob]

Much Zen got caught up in what appears to be a Zhentog interpretation of yogacara texts. Or the idea of an absolute oneness of everything, based upon a misinterpretation of experience and texts. Not all of Zen seems to have done this, or not all masters within Zen or Chan.

 

Anyway... you can have your view. It will make you happy for a long time.

 

Since you think of me the way you do, there's no point in debating with you.

 

I see so it sounds like you trying to refute a well known Zen Koan (question) as probably being mis-based or whatever?

 

Considering that, and on basic impression it sounds to me like you do not understand the Koan and thus proceed to launch into another "they" or such schools are likely wrong or even are actually wrong compared to your superior understanding of all such teachings and or counter teachings.

 

Btw, how I may or may not think of you is not eternal... none-the-less there is Udana sutra 8.3 (thus imo projections about the future after cosmic dissolution are badly missing the mark but you can have such a view if it makes you happy)

 

Om

[forestofclarity]

[Apech]

Much Zen got caught up in what appears to be a Zhentog interpretation of yogacara texts. Or the idea of an absolute oneness of everything, based upon a misinterpretation of experience and texts. Not all of Zen seems to have done this, or not all masters within Zen or Chan.

 

 

 

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'.

[TzuJanLi]

There is deeper. If you think or rather feel or identify that this "one" is the ultimate reality of everything and the true source of existence, this understanding and experience will gladly welcome you into it's arms for you to sleep in after the end of this universes' karmic expressions' time period. Or it might welcome you before this as you absorb into a blissful formless realm at the end of this life to lay dormant for a number of eons in a manifestation of your own experience that a formless essence is at the base of everything and is true, and ultimate, and is the home of everything. It's really just a space of dormancy though.

 

The Buddha had all these experiences you're talking about, and went deeper.

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]

I actually don't do much studying anymore and haven't for a number of years. Most everything I bring up here is just from memory and re-researching for the sake of what seems necessary to quote in the now.

 

I mostly like to read my mentors discussions and listen to my Rinpoches broadcasts and transmissions. I do plan on doing more studying though!

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..

[xabir2005]

WoW! I got more than I bargained for. Hehehe.

 

Yes, we have had this discussion before. I am, therefore I think.

 

 

 

I did want to highlight this because I think it is important. But our brain functions according to dualistic concepts. However, yes, it is true that we can go beyond these dualistic concepts and see everything in its own truth and beauty.

As Vajrahridaya says - even dualistic concepts (like 'me' and 'you') are non-dual. When this is seen, all thoughts arise and subside according to conditions, but the contents are no longer believed or held tightly. It is like seeing the word 'weather' for what it is - nothing substantial, it is not pointing to something inherently existing. Yet we are free to use the word 'weather' for convenience.

This is true only because we cannot see the future. Hey, it (the future) hasn't happened yet. How could we possibly see it?

 

But then I will argue that I can control my next thoughts. I can concentrate on a concepts and all following thoughs, or at least the greatest majority, will be consistent with the thought pattern.

 

But it is true, the past is written, the future hasn't happened yet, therefore all we have is the present moment. But even that is in the past by the time we recognize it. All we can do is react to what has happened - but we can't change it.

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.

Edited November 20, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Much Zen got caught up in what appears to be a Zhentog interpretation of yogacara texts. Or the idea of an absolute oneness of everything, based upon a misinterpretation of experience and texts. Not all of Zen seems to have done this, or not all masters within Zen or Chan.

 

Anyway... you can have your view. It will make you happy for a long time.

 

Since you think of me the way you do, there's no point in debating with you.

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.

[ralis]

Norbu has a glass of wine sometimes now and that's it.

 

Me? Why not stay out of my personal life Ralis. You should quit gambling!

 

p.s.

 

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.

[ralis]

Norbu has a glass of wine sometimes now and that's it.

 

Me? Why not stay out of my personal life Ralis. You should quit gambling!

 

p.s.

 

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.