Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Apech]

Oh yes the deja vu is strong now:(

 

Ground of Being,

 

Ground of Being is an interesting idea. Starting from an experiential point of view you can say that you perceive things to exist ... that is to be. Then you can say that there is something about all the things ... the quality of their existence ... or their being which they hold in common. This 'being' is like something (not a thing actually) which sustains them in being. The being is 'Being' the sustainer of everything which could be called their mother. Then what is the underlying actual nature of Being? What does it depend or rely on? A ground of Being. A substratum of existence. The nature which you would uncover if you could strip away the outer form(s) of Being.

 

It is this kind of thinking which tempts us into the monism which Vaj. critiques. This is because it is easy then to think - there is one underlying ground of being which is eternal and unchanging. This makes a 'thing' out of the Tao. As if to say it is something 'other' which stands alone behind existence and is unchanging. But actually this is only a problem of words and philosophy.

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh yes the deja vu is strong now:(

 

 

Well, the thread does say, "Taoism vs. Buddhism".

Ground of Being is an interesting idea. Starting from an experiential point of view you can say that you perceive things to exist ... that is to be. Then you can say that there is something about all the things ... the quality of their existence ... or their being which they hold in common. This 'being' is like something (not a thing actually) which sustains them in being. The being is 'Being' the sustainer of everything which could be called their mother. Then what is the underlying actual nature of Being? What does it depend or rely on? A ground of Being. A substratum of existence. The nature which you would uncover if you could strip away the outer form(s) of Being.

 

Yes, but the teaching and contemplation of emptiness as taught by the Buddha reveals this expanded experience of overarching existence or transcendent reality arises dependently and if considered real and independent merely leads to re-absorption into an experience of a ground of being rather than liberation as defined by the Buddha.

 

It is this kind of thinking which tempts us into the monism which Vaj. critiques. This is because it is easy then to think - there is one underlying ground of being which is eternal and unchanging. This makes a 'thing' out of the Tao. As if to say it is something 'other' which stands alone behind existence and is unchanging. But actually this is only a problem of words and philosophy.

 

I think it's also a problem of experience and whether one goes deeper or gets stuck in the very blissful and virtue filled state of oneness, which is a very attractive aspect of Samsara (process of recycling) according to Buddhist teaching.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Guest allan]

[Vajrahridaya]

The picture painted by certain members of a minor Buddhist sect

 

Actually what I am talking about is supported by the vast majority of Buddhism. But, you are welcome to your own take of anything and everything.

 

The Buddha never talked about emptiness as a source of everything, as the root of the 10,000 things in any real sense. Actually the Buddha mostly talked about inter-dependent origination and not much about the emptiness of inter-dependent origination. The elaboration on emptiness especially by Nagarjuna came later, but is well supported by the Pali Suttas.

 

The Buddha never talked about there being a definitive singular source of all things, and actually elaborated as to why this is a Samsaric view.

 

It seems you are more into reading Taoism, so I cannot blame you for not knowing what the Buddha taught.

 

But, if you want to know, you should study it more. Lau Tzu and the Buddha did not teach the same truth about things in the ultimate sense, though there are some relative similarities even though we hardly have much to go on when it comes to Lau Tzu as he didn't really say much or elaborate much on the meaning of his small amount of words we can attribute to him.

 

The I-Ching divination has been used in my family my entire life, I'm 35 and a half... teh he . Though I see it as a good way to traverse through samsara as it senses the pull and sway of it's currents, for a definitive source of enlightened teaching practice methods I do personally look elsewhere. The Buddha clearly states that there is no primordial overarching source of the cosmos, it's just a beginningless process of recycling, without a mother or father.

 

You could say the universe is a self perpetuating bastard. But only metaphorically.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[C T]

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Generally speaking, yes, there is no empirical scientific proof for either.

 

Yes, Heads or Tails, then.

[Vajrahridaya]

You ought to teach the ignorant Buddhists about 'emptiness'. Maybe they will then swagger less.

 

I'm all ears! Or eyes rather...

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, Heads or Tails, then.

 

You dear Songs are happy to choose in your infinite potential for freedom!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

This thread is sooo 2009...

[Vajrahridaya]

This thread is sooo 2009...

 

I know... sadly I'm only here to kill time while I'm sick in bed... wha wha...

 

I'll be gone again soon enough.

[Apech]

Well, the thread does say, "Taoism vs. Buddhism".

 

Sounds like a football fixture. (and when I say football I mean real football not that rubbish with shoulder pads and crash helmets that you play over there).

 

Mind you if you keep posting at such speed and regularity it will soon look more like the Vajina monologue.

 

Yes, but the teaching and contemplation of emptiness as taught by the Buddha reveals this expanded experience of overarching existence or transcendent reality arises dependently and if considered real and independent merely leads to re-absorption into an experience of a ground of being rather than liberation as defined by the Buddha.

 

Everything arises dependently. But you don't say 'I am going to drive my collocated-dependent-phenomena-which-I-label-vehicle to work today'. You call it a car and it is a car. Unless you have reabsorbed your car in which case you take the bus.

 

I think it's also a problem of experience and whether one goes deeper or gets stuck in the very blissful and virtue filled state of oneness, which is a very attractive aspect of Samsara (process of recycling) according to Buddhist teaching.

 

Taoism is not about (I stand to be corrected here by the more wise) escaping to some transcendent bliss state. That is the god realms of Buddhism. It is (perhaps) about understanding and becoming one with the changing processes of reality which are seen as a flow of energy (qi). The fundamental nature of this reality is mystery, formless and unspeakable. Here 'becoming one with' does not imply monism. Monism is concealed dualism - which for instance theist systems like Christianity are prone to. Becoming one means you have removed the apparent duality.

[Vajrahridaya]

Taoism is not about (I stand to be corrected here by the more wise) escaping to some transcendent bliss state. That is the god realms of Buddhism. It is (perhaps) about understanding and becoming one with the changing processes of reality which are seen as a flow of energy (qi). The fundamental nature of this reality is mystery, formless and unspeakable. Here 'becoming one with' does not imply monism. Monism is concealed dualism - which for instance theist systems like Christianity are prone to. Becoming one means you have removed the apparent duality.

 

Your way of explaining Taoism always agrees with my Buddhist sensibilities.

 

Like I've said, there are Taoists that I agree with and Taoists that I don't. I don't agree with Lau Tzu on certain things, and agree with Chuang Tzu on more things and I love the I-Ching for it's continual divined guidance through the thrashing currents of Samsara.

 

Also, who really knows what Lau Tzu means by all his seemingly Theistic metaphors talking about the Tao being the mother or creator of the 10,000 things? I wasn't there and he didn't do much elaborating himself. It's all open for interpretation.

[Aetherous]

I said:

 

I was just reading The Dark Red Amulet today, and at the beginning of Chapter 7 it says the following:

 

The essence element (thigle) is the source of great bliss, which is beyond the ordinary sensations of bliss. The ultimate state of the essence element is the great bliss-emptiness of primordial wisdom. It is not subject to change, so we cannot say it is permanent or impermanent. This is why it is called "the great permanence". The siddha king Indrabhuti said, "Great bliss is not impermanent," which implies that it is permanent. But this permanence goes beyond relative permanence and impermanence. The higher teachings use the Sanskrit prefix maha or the Tibetan suffix chenpo, which means "great," to symbolize what is beyond duality.

 

So not all Buddhists believe the same thing about this, it seems. And what it really comes down to is that it's a difference in belief...because experientially, is there really a difference between the two opinions?

 

Vajrahridaya said:

 

This is talking about wisdom, or insight into the nature of things as interdependent and empty of inherent substance as being the source of the experience of great bliss. Because all things are equally empty and have always been and will always be, this wisdom or insight is beyond change, coming and going, but that is not the same as saying it's the ground of all being. Basically all forms of Buddhism agree on this except for a very few fringe groups. Talking about the source of yogic bliss and talking about a singular overarching source of all things that self exists is different.

 

No, it's clearly not.

[Apech]

Your way of explaining Taoism always agrees with my Buddhist sensibilities.

 

Like I've said, there are Taoists that I agree with and Taoists that I don't. I don't agree with Lau Tzu on certain things, and agree with Chuang Tzu on more things and I love the I-Ching for it's continual divined guidance through the thrashing currents of Samsara.

 

Also, who really knows what Lau Tzu means by all his seemingly Theistic metaphors talking about the Tao being the mother or creator of the 10,000 things? I wasn't there and he didn't do much elaborating himself. It's all open for interpretation.

 

There's plenty of Taoist commentary on Lao Tzu ... and I guess Buddhism is elaboration on what Buddha said ... and we weren't there to hear that either.

 

I guess I take your point that different people take it in different ways. Some do seem to regard the Tao as some kind of source. But to me the idea of a source just removes it from what is (or not-is) - abstracts the Tao. Its a bit like if you look at an ocean ... you might look at the waves and patterns on the surface or you might look into its fathomless depths. When looking at the waves you ask 'where did they come from?' ... and answer 'the ocean made them!' ... then look into the depths and say 'ah this is the source of the waves' ... but actually they are just aspects of the ocean ... you can't say it is waves, but you can't say its not waves, you can't say its just depths and you can't say its not ... you can't say the depths create the waves they are just co-present ... and so on.

 

There's a story from 100,000 songs of Milarepa called Woman's role in dharma (from memory). He teaches a woman to meditate on various things including the sky ... and she says she gets on all right till clouds come along ... and he answers that the clouds are the sky.

 

.. its late ... not sure where I'm going with this ...

 

Hope you feel better soon Vaj.

Edited November 8, 2010 by apepch7

[Vajrahridaya]

 

No, it's clearly not.

 

Actually, yes it is. The thigle arises dependent upon experiential wisdom. What you are reading is from my practice and teaching lineage. When they say essence, they are not talking about an inherent thing that self exists and arises independently, all alone. The essence as in the essence of insight into the nature of things is bliss, as in bliss is inherent to wisdom, arises in conjunction with it. The thigle is a spherical symbol of this wisdom that can be experienced directly, which arises dependent upon and in conjunction with experiential insight. I've experienced this thigle many times directly in and out of meditation.

 

Because I've been schooled by a Lappon (high level scholar) who translates Tibetan into English. I do feel that I have a much clearer basis for understanding the meaning and context of these terms that find their origin within Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism.

 

Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche is not talking about an inherent essence of everything that self exists. It is true that the essence of the wisdom experience is bliss though and the experience makes ones mind spherical and whole.

 

Though, I haven't read his book, he is a teacher from the Nyingma tradition, the same tradition as my Dzogchen teacher. I'm sure their teachings cannot be too far from each other in "essence."

 

p.s. Since my Lappon friend has Vajrakilaya transmission in the Nyingma tradition, I've presented the cut out to him for commentary. Lets see what he says?

Edited November 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Gerard]

Oh yes the deja vu is strong now:(

 

I would say old habits that tend to repeat themselves: KARMA.

 

I no longer post-discuss what I stated previously if I see that would lead to tension and a possible habit. No karma with me, for sure.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Gerard

[Vajrahridaya]

There's plenty of Taoist commentary on Lao Tzu ... and I guess Buddhism is elaboration on what Buddha said ... and we weren't there to hear that either.

 

Yes, but not by Lau Tzu himself. The Buddha did comment and elaborate very clearly on his own words. He taught for 40 years, created an order of monks, etc. We are far more clear on who the Buddha was and what he taught than we are about Lau Tzu who remains largely a mystery.

 

 

I guess I take your point that different people take it in different ways. Some do seem to regard the Tao as some kind of source. But to me the idea of a source just removes it from what is (or not-is) - abstracts the Tao. Its a bit like if you look at an ocean ... you might look at the waves and patterns on the surface or you might look into its fathomless depths. When looking at the waves you ask 'where did they come from?' ... and answer 'the ocean made them!' ... then look into the depths and say 'ah this is the source of the waves' ... but actually they are just aspects of the ocean ... you can't say it is waves, but you can't say its not waves, you can't say its just depths and you can't say its not ... you can't say the depths create the waves they are just co-present ... and so on.

 

There's a story from 100,000 songs of Milarepa called Woman's role in dharma (from memory). He teaches a woman to meditate on various things including the sky ... and she says she gets on all right till clouds come along ... and he answers that the clouds are the sky.

 

.. its late ... not sure where I'm going with this ...

 

Hope you feel better soon Vaj.

 

... UGH. I'm so nauseous... the nausea is the sickness in this case and vice versa.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Aetherous]

p.s. Since my Lappon friend has Vajrakilaya transmission in the Nyingma tradition, I've presented the cut out to him for commentary. Lets see what he says?

 

Even if he shares your view, that will be interesting to read.

[Vajrahridaya]

Even if he shares your view, that will be interesting to read.

 

Well, your not going to find any support for "self" existent essence of all things or "universal" self existence in any form of genuine Buddhism that finds it's support in the Pali Canon or Mahayana Sutras. I'm just saying that the words do sound like they are saying what you are insinuating, but I've in the past had the habit of reading the same into these books before being corrected by further study and pointing out instructions by my Rinpoche and Lappon.

 

Anyway... lets see if he even answers me??

[Birch]

Oh buggery wuggery.

I left this thread alone for an afternoon (I was away doing very un-practice things, that must've done it!) and I get back and I see:

 

-"I think this won't digress"

- "Viewless view" blah blah blah

- "Actually it is a viewless view"

- "So 2009"

- "Scotty"

- "Marblehead"

- "My practice, mine my my"

- "Thigle"

 

(what is a "thigle"??)

 

So it digressed.

 

Such has been my experience of this thread so far. I think I omitted some parts of it. I'm tired, please forgive.

 

Normally, at this point, wouldn't a bodhisattva throw a flower at ya?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Normally, at this point, wouldn't a bodhisattva throw a flower at ya?

 

Someone is taking a discussion on differences a bit personally?

 

Why do so many people here feel that we all have to agree in order to progress? projections, projections, concepts, concepts.

 

Why not google Thigle and find out what it means Kate?

 

Here... I'll help ya... Googled Thigle

 

Consider the flower thrown!

 

P.S. On second thought, many of the answers you find might be a little confusing... maybe.

 

Here, this seems to be one of the better thread of answers that I could find online.

 

Yahoo answers, "What is the Buddhist tigle"

 

It really just means "sphere" or "drop". The last answer is my favorite...

 

Manifestations of enlightenment that appear in the elements spontaneously.

 

There are really so many different uses for tigle in Buddhist tantric practice depending upon which practice. But, at the highest stage, the "essence" tigle is the manifestation of enlightened mind.

Edited November 8, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

[Guest allan]

[majc]

To the original poster. If you want to know one vital thing that makes Buddhism and Taoism different, it's the fact that Taoism subscribes to one eternal source of all existence that is the primal essence of all things, beyond explanation and thought. Buddhism does not.

Ha! - oh dear.

 

 

The idea of the Tao is more of a teaching device, to get the person to think about the common pattern or the common reality behind the 10,000 things.

How can this be true? The Tao is not an idea. (See TTC line #1)

You could maybe get away with saying the TTC, as a whole, is a teaching device... but I wouldn't.

 

 

I think you're projecting Buddhist influenced thinking onto it. As a stand alone tradition, it's definitely monist.

As a standalone tradition? Ok. But... what if it's not a standalone tradition?

[Apech]

 

Do you know that many Yi aficionados in the West have read the Yi and made divinations years before you were born? And quite a number of them who live in the Americas and Europe regularly visit my blog perhaps to learn a thing or two. Perhaps you and your mum can visit it too and laugh at my ignorance, since I only know 'a touch of the ancients, buddhas, immortals and the Zhouyi'.

 

 

 

Which blog?