I'm a little confused

[manitou]

I've been away for a few weeks, and came back to see that the Buddhist Discussion is in a separate area. I popped in to read a few, and I was a bit heartbroken to see the most beautiful thread started by Seth Ananda about the earnestness of the inner work. This is something that's so very important in my opinion, and it hurts me to see that it's not all in one place.

 

The reason I say this, is that I think that without the inner work (would that be the Buddhist 8 fold path?) the rest of this is just a cerebral experience. The form can be understood by study alone, the essence must be understood by inner mining. It seems to me that the Buddhists place a very heavy emphasis on the inner clearing-out process in a way that I haven't found in Taoism. Or at least not yet.

 

My own personal inner work manual was the steps of recovery being done over a 30 year period. This works as well. As much as I love the TTC and the sage, I've always sort of wondered at the Taoist path, in that I haven't heard a lot of mention of any sort of an inner path with Taoists.

 

I do understand that the Sage has done the inner work and is an enlightened being. It is apparent from the 3 treasures he possesses, Never Too Much, Never Be The First, and Love. In order to possess these things, the Sage certainly must have been doing inner work. Never Too Much comes from a lifetime of pursuing selfish pleasures and discovering the futility of that (unless of course the very wise Sage can learn from others so he doesn't have to experience the humiliation of a life gone awry firsthand). Never Be The First comes after many years of tamping down the ego, realizing that life is not a race that has to be won. Love comes after the Sage has eliminated the dark, the irrelevant, the selfish and can truly become a reflection of the Great Essence.

 

But my question is this. Within the Taoist 'structure', is there something like an 8-fold path (or a 12 step path?) for Taoists to get down to their original nature? And if it's all about getting down to our original nature, which it seems to be.....why are we now separated into two forums? Isn't Seth's thread about the inner work just as important on the Taoist thread? I think those of us on the Taoist thread are going to suffer because of the separation.

 

Are we not all talking about the same thing? It appears to me that all paths lead up the same mountain and meet at the top. From my perspective, I can See it. It just seems that we gain immensely by bouncing the two mindsets off each other. When we get to the point where we See that we're All One (okay, let the tomatoes start flying) it seems counterproductive to once again artificially separate the paths. It just seems to me that what happens here on this forum is a constant evolution upward, and we are getting closer and closer to removing the human foibles which cause the split in the two paths.

 

Maybe there were too many arguments. But arguments are the very thing that give us a measure of ourselves. If something angers us that someone else said, the trick is to go inside and see why it is angering us. Are we clinging to a favorite mindset out of ego, because we've invested so many years in studying this particular path and surely this must be the only correct way? This we can do something about. Anger can be the perfect measurement for our own inner work.

 

And Love. When the Sage or the Buddha gets to the point of Love, that means he no longer makes judgment on anyone; things are perfect as they are. The Buddha nature lives within us, as does the Sage nature. I'm thinking it's all the same. The only thing that separates it is Form. Form is limiting. The result of lots of years of metaphysical study and lots of years of inner mining has shown me that there is no separation between the I Am. We are all the I Am. Most of us just don't know it yet.

 

The separation of the mindsets on our forum just feels like a step backwards to me. When I came back from hiatus, it sort of tore my heart in two to see it.

 

I'm sure this has all been previously discussed, ad nauseum, probably. If so, I apologize for bringing it up again. This is just my very late two cents being thrown into the can.

[Protector]

Buddha follows the Tao, Buddhists follow the Buddha

[Informer]

I've been away for a few weeks, and came back to see that the Buddhist Discussion is in a separate area. I popped in to read a few, and I was a bit heartbroken to see the most beautiful thread started by Seth Ananda about the earnestness of the inner work. This is something that's so very important in my opinion, and it hurts me to see that it's not all in one place.

 

The reason I say this, is that I think that without the inner work (would that be the Buddhist 8 fold path?) the rest of this is just a cerebral experience. The form can be understood by study alone, the essence must be understood by inner mining. It seems to me that the Buddhists place a very heavy emphasis on the inner clearing-out process in a way that I haven't found in Taoism. Or at least not yet.

 

My own personal inner work manual was the steps of recovery being done over a 30 year period. This works as well. As much as I love the TTC and the sage, I've always sort of wondered at the Taoist path, in that I haven't heard a lot of mention of any sort of an inner path with Taoists.

 

I do understand that the Sage has done the inner work and is an enlightened being. It is apparent from the 3 treasures he possesses, Never Too Much, Never Be The First, and Love. In order to possess these things, the Sage certainly must have been doing inner work. Never Too Much comes from a lifetime of pursuing selfish pleasures and discovering the futility of that (unless of course the very wise Sage can learn from others so he doesn't have to experience the humiliation of a life gone awry firsthand). Never Be The First comes after many years of tamping down the ego, realizing that life is not a race that has to be won. Love comes after the Sage has eliminated the dark, the irrelevant, the selfish and can truly become a reflection of the Great Essence.

 

But my question is this. Within the Taoist 'structure', is there something like an 8-fold path (or a 12 step path?) for Taoists to get down to their original nature? And if it's all about getting down to our original nature, which it seems to be.....why are we now separated into two forums? Isn't Seth's thread about the inner work just as important on the Taoist thread? I think those of us on the Taoist thread are going to suffer because of the separation.

 

Are we not all talking about the same thing? It appears to me that all paths lead up the same mountain and meet at the top. From my perspective, I can See it. It just seems that we gain immensely by bouncing the two mindsets off each other. When we get to the point where we See that we're All One (okay, let the tomatoes start flying) it seems counterproductive to once again artificially separate the paths. It just seems to me that what happens here on this forum is a constant evolution upward, and we are getting closer and closer to removing the human foibles which cause the split in the two paths.

 

Maybe there were too many arguments. But arguments are the very thing that give us a measure of ourselves. If something angers us that someone else said, the trick is to go inside and see why it is angering us. Are we clinging to a favorite mindset out of ego, because we've invested so many years in studying this particular path and surely this must be the only correct way? This we can do something about. Anger can be the perfect measurement for our own inner work.

 

And Love. When the Sage or the Buddha gets to the point of Love, that means he no longer makes judgment on anyone; things are perfect as they are. The Buddha nature lives within us, as does the Sage nature. I'm thinking it's all the same. The only thing that separates it is Form. Form is limiting. The result of lots of years of metaphysical study and lots of years of inner mining has shown me that there is no separation between the I Am. We are all the I Am. Most of us just don't know it yet.

 

The separation of the mindsets on our forum just feels like a step backwards to me. When I came back from hiatus, it sort of tore my heart in two to see it.

 

I'm sure this has all been previously discussed, ad nauseum, probably. If so, I apologize for bringing it up again. This is just my very late two cents being thrown into the can.

 

 

I think it came about it fairness when the Toaist forum made a split. I tend to disagree with you about the internal working. I have found that Taoist Alchemy is much more straight forward in explanations to me.

 

I do agree that all of these practices have direct correlations that are being uncovered. The words are simply things of the mind, which we must all go beyond to discover the true nature that exists within.

 

As a side note, I personally feel that there are inherent dangers, possibly due to translations, that can trap one within paradoxes, if the seeker is not careful to understand that some questions are without answer and are inconsequential. It seems like it is easy for some to assume that a deduction leads to an absolute truth, without truly grasping the underlying meaning. It is most evident to me in the teachings of "no-self" and many come to conclusions that this is an absolute truth, Which can hinder any further progress, in regards to utilizing the unnatached awareness that I feel the teaching is defining and pointing towards. There is a point at which one is to go beyond the mind, and it becomes difficult if they are attached to another phenomena. The original One I think is to point at self as Ego, then to be left behind, freeing awareness. Then to discover the heart center, then to realize that this to is not what you are, but you are a part of it. Which I think is what two-fold emptiness is pointing at.

[dwai]

I've been away for a few weeks, and came back to see that the Buddhist Discussion is in a separate area. I popped in to read a few, and I was a bit heartbroken to see the most beautiful thread started by Seth Ananda about the earnestness of the inner work. This is something that's so very important in my opinion, and it hurts me to see that it's not all in one place.

 

The reason I say this, is that I think that without the inner work (would that be the Buddhist 8 fold path?) the rest of this is just a cerebral experience. The form can be understood by study alone, the essence must be understood by inner mining. It seems to me that the Buddhists place a very heavy emphasis on the inner clearing-out process in a way that I haven't found in Taoism. Or at least not yet.

 

My own personal inner work manual was the steps of recovery being done over a 30 year period. This works as well. As much as I love the TTC and the sage, I've always sort of wondered at the Taoist path, in that I haven't heard a lot of mention of any sort of an inner path with Taoists.

 

I do understand that the Sage has done the inner work and is an enlightened being. It is apparent from the 3 treasures he possesses, Never Too Much, Never Be The First, and Love. In order to possess these things, the Sage certainly must have been doing inner work. Never Too Much comes from a lifetime of pursuing selfish pleasures and discovering the futility of that (unless of course the very wise Sage can learn from others so he doesn't have to experience the humiliation of a life gone awry firsthand). Never Be The First comes after many years of tamping down the ego, realizing that life is not a race that has to be won. Love comes after the Sage has eliminated the dark, the irrelevant, the selfish and can truly become a reflection of the Great Essence.

 

But my question is this. Within the Taoist 'structure', is there something like an 8-fold path (or a 12 step path?) for Taoists to get down to their original nature? And if it's all about getting down to our original nature, which it seems to be.....why are we now separated into two forums? Isn't Seth's thread about the inner work just as important on the Taoist thread? I think those of us on the Taoist thread are going to suffer because of the separation.

 

Are we not all talking about the same thing? It appears to me that all paths lead up the same mountain and meet at the top. From my perspective, I can See it. It just seems that we gain immensely by bouncing the two mindsets off each other. When we get to the point where we See that we're All One (okay, let the tomatoes start flying) it seems counterproductive to once again artificially separate the paths. It just seems to me that what happens here on this forum is a constant evolution upward, and we are getting closer and closer to removing the human foibles which cause the split in the two paths.

 

Maybe there were too many arguments. But arguments are the very thing that give us a measure of ourselves. If something angers us that someone else said, the trick is to go inside and see why it is angering us. Are we clinging to a favorite mindset out of ego, because we've invested so many years in studying this particular path and surely this must be the only correct way? This we can do something about. Anger can be the perfect measurement for our own inner work.

 

And Love. When the Sage or the Buddha gets to the point of Love, that means he no longer makes judgment on anyone; things are perfect as they are. The Buddha nature lives within us, as does the Sage nature. I'm thinking it's all the same. The only thing that separates it is Form. Form is limiting. The result of lots of years of metaphysical study and lots of years of inner mining has shown me that there is no separation between the I Am. We are all the I Am. Most of us just don't know it yet.

 

The separation of the mindsets on our forum just feels like a step backwards to me. When I came back from hiatus, it sort of tore my heart in two to see it.

 

I'm sure this has all been previously discussed, ad nauseum, probably. If so, I apologize for bringing it up again. This is just my very late two cents being thrown into the can.

 

Dear manitou,

 

Arent the three treasures of a taoist chi, jing and shen?

Doesnt the taoist follow the inner path of cultivating all three?

Doesnt taoist meditation entail finding the dao behind all thr humdrum of the mind?

 

One component most revered by taoists is hsin, which is the heart mind. That is also the primary means to finding love and compassion. Only difference is tat taoists are not compelled to "spread" their love the way buddhists re (aka proselytize)

[konchog uma]

 

The reason I say this, is that I think that without the inner work (would that be the Buddhist 8 fold path?) the rest of this is just a cerebral experience. The form can be understood by study alone, the essence must be understood by inner mining. It seems to me that the Buddhists place a very heavy emphasis on the inner clearing-out process in a way that I haven't found in Taoism. Or at least not yet.

 

 

i think in daoism there is more energy work and addressing blockages and cleaning away dirt by releasing stagnant qi and toxic qi from the body and building strong qi. Buddhism is more psychological, but the powerful mind realizations of buddhism trigger the body to release the blockages. !! so in a way they are the same

 

I think dao is more direct and simple. Buddhism is indirect and complicated by comparison, so it is important for me as a buddhist not to get caught up in the net of too-much-philosophy. But on the other hand, some of my most important breakthroughs and releases of garbage have been immediately preceded by the realization neccessary to do it! Without the philosophical work of buddhism, my mind would not have been able to press the trigger to launch the garbage away!

 

i think at the core of daoist arts; accupuncture, diet, qigong, soft martial arts, meditation, etc you have actions designed to clear out, but not really so much in philosophical daoism. Where buddhists are shorter on arts, but longer on philosophy.

 

[RiverSnake]

It was not any arguments that triggered the switch in the forum. Someone made a poll thread about creating a new divide in the forum and the majority of people wanted an new section or 2.

Edited September 27, 2011 by OldGreen

[zanshin]

I think a path depends on how your brain works. I never could get from a to b to c to d to e. Only from hopelessly confused stuck at a, then I would have an epiphany and go from a to e and only then be able to backtrack and see how b,c and d fit in. Formal education does not favor people with intuitive brains. I have a kid with a brain like mine, we screw up don't get it, spaced out staring out the window or doodling on a piece of paper when when we're supposed to be trying to understand piddly stuff. Then somehow we understand everything right, even the piddly stuff, and we're gifted and talented, til the next time when we don't get it at all not working up to our potential. Ever train for sports or performing arts? In early stages learning and getting better in a linear fashion we learn basics step by step and develop skills and consistently getting better, but then most people plateau stuck stuck stuck not getting better. Actually, a lot of learning consolidation at those plateaus and as we become more elite start to learn that if we keep working and trying different things we'll get through the plateau and breakout to a stage where it all comes together again til stuck again. So eventually some things have to happen by epiphany, some parts don't have steps. It is all the same path, whether we take it off road or by steps.

[Trunk]

TIP:

Click on "View New Content" (upper right hand of screen) to see a list of new posts regardless of where they are.

[doc benway]

I've been away for a few weeks, and came back to see that the Buddhist Discussion is in a separate area. I popped in to read a few, and I was a bit heartbroken to see the most beautiful thread started by Seth Ananda about the earnestness of the inner work. This is something that's so very important in my opinion, and it hurts me to see that it's not all in one place.

 

The reason I say this, is that I think that without the inner work (would that be the Buddhist 8 fold path?) the rest of this is just a cerebral experience. The form can be understood by study alone, the essence must be understood by inner mining. It seems to me that the Buddhists place a very heavy emphasis on the inner clearing-out process in a way that I haven't found in Taoism. Or at least not yet.

 

My own personal inner work manual was the steps of recovery being done over a 30 year period. This works as well. As much as I love the TTC and the sage, I've always sort of wondered at the Taoist path, in that I haven't heard a lot of mention of any sort of an inner path with Taoists.

 

I do understand that the Sage has done the inner work and is an enlightened being. It is apparent from the 3 treasures he possesses, Never Too Much, Never Be The First, and Love. In order to possess these things, the Sage certainly must have been doing inner work. Never Too Much comes from a lifetime of pursuing selfish pleasures and discovering the futility of that (unless of course the very wise Sage can learn from others so he doesn't have to experience the humiliation of a life gone awry firsthand). Never Be The First comes after many years of tamping down the ego, realizing that life is not a race that has to be won. Love comes after the Sage has eliminated the dark, the irrelevant, the selfish and can truly become a reflection of the Great Essence.

 

But my question is this. Within the Taoist 'structure', is there something like an 8-fold path (or a 12 step path?) for Taoists to get down to their original nature? And if it's all about getting down to our original nature, which it seems to be.....why are we now separated into two forums? Isn't Seth's thread about the inner work just as important on the Taoist thread? I think those of us on the Taoist thread are going to suffer because of the separation.

 

Are we not all talking about the same thing? It appears to me that all paths lead up the same mountain and meet at the top. From my perspective, I can See it. It just seems that we gain immensely by bouncing the two mindsets off each other. When we get to the point where we See that we're All One (okay, let the tomatoes start flying) it seems counterproductive to once again artificially separate the paths. It just seems to me that what happens here on this forum is a constant evolution upward, and we are getting closer and closer to removing the human foibles which cause the split in the two paths.

 

Maybe there were too many arguments. But arguments are the very thing that give us a measure of ourselves. If something angers us that someone else said, the trick is to go inside and see why it is angering us. Are we clinging to a favorite mindset out of ego, because we've invested so many years in studying this particular path and surely this must be the only correct way? This we can do something about. Anger can be the perfect measurement for our own inner work.

 

And Love. When the Sage or the Buddha gets to the point of Love, that means he no longer makes judgment on anyone; things are perfect as they are. The Buddha nature lives within us, as does the Sage nature. I'm thinking it's all the same. The only thing that separates it is Form. Form is limiting. The result of lots of years of metaphysical study and lots of years of inner mining has shown me that there is no separation between the I Am. We are all the I Am. Most of us just don't know it yet.

 

The separation of the mindsets on our forum just feels like a step backwards to me. When I came back from hiatus, it sort of tore my heart in two to see it.

 

I'm sure this has all been previously discussed, ad nauseum, probably. If so, I apologize for bringing it up again. This is just my very late two cents being thrown into the can.

I quoted your post again because I think every word of it is a valuable lesson for us as a community interested in spiritual growth.

 

Unfortunately, using Trunk's tip does not bring people together with different perspectives to share and learn from each other. Sadly, I think many of us are not ready for or interested in that level of interaction.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Looking at the 8fold path, we have Right

View or Understanding

Intention

Speech

Action

Livelihood

Effort

Mindfulness or Meditation

Concentration

 

It is an easy argument to say that Buddhism is much more list oriented than Taoism, but how do we see these foundational guidelines in Taoism? I like this question

 

For right view, this may be difficult as right view in Buddhism, in my understanding, is about seeing the transitory nature of life, and how it goes back to Emptiness. The view in Taoism, going back Wuji, is not the same though comparable. Where they do meet however is in seeing the transitory nature of everything, and Chuang Tzu especially speaks about how people place so much importance on material things and superficialities without seeing that they do not provide what people are after.

 

In effect, these two positions are very very similar, imo, since they both reduce people's suffering regarding so many things by saying "let it go. It doesn't actually matter in the long run. Focus on the important things rather than deluded senses of self and other."

 

I'm out of time for right now, but maybe someone will want to continue from here on Right Understanding. Or move on to right Intention, or make a new thread about this whole thing. It's a bit scholastic, but I think it will be fun at the very least.. Each point could have lots and lots of considerations.

 

Also, as to reasons for the Buddhist Discussion forum, I like it because Buddhism is an important part of most modern Taoism so it should be discussed in depth, imo, but that would also make the forum seem like it makes no distinction between the two as the Buddhist discussions would dominate for long periods of time. Plus the GD is moving pretty fast so I think the sub forums are useful to keep these topics going at all times without suppressing other topics or not getting too deeply into not Taoist discussions..

[thelerner]

I think dao is more direct and simple. Buddhism is indirect and complicated by comparison, so it is important for me as a buddhist not to get caught up in the net of too-much-philosophy.

I really resonate with this. I love the explanations and clarity of Buddhism, but too often people get into 'how many angels on a pin' discussions based on dogma, some of it cultural bound, and not the heart of Buddhism.

[Jetsun]

In my experience the Buddhist path is a lot more clear, which is why there have been so many realised masters in Buddhism and so many lineages with successions of enlightened teachers, while the Taoist masters and lineages seem scarce. John Blofeld says in all his extensive travels around China before the Mao era that nearly all of the masters he met which were regarded as enlightened were Buddhist and hardly any Taoist. I do like a lot of the simplicity in many of the principles on Taoism, for example you can as bring it all down to something as simple as "flow like water", yet because of the destruction and persecution of all things religious after the cultural revolution many of the practical teachings appear to be scattered and it is hard to determine which teachings and techniques are authentic or are invented recently and it appears like not that many genuine lineages survived. Perhaps there are more Taoist teachings and lineages which are in hiding which will emerge when China opens up a bit more, I hope so.

[Protector]

Taoists are not scarce, they just don't give a damn so much that they don't stand out

[fiveelementtao]

Are we not all talking about the same thing?

 

I see it similarly to discussing practices like Internal Martial Arts. As you approach the subject from a distance, there is value in discussing the general, foundational understandings of Qi, rooting etc... But as you get closer, you find that while there are unifying factors in all the IMAs it also becomes necessary to start distunguishing the differences if one is to gain maximum benefit from each practice. Tai Chi and Bagua have alot of similarities and reflect the same general taoist principles, but when it comes to applying those principles, each IMA has different strategies and for one to be proficient in applying each art, it then becomes necessary to focus on the differences.

 

So, without meaning any criticism, I feel that proclaiming these two religions as "One" is too superficial of an understanding. From a distance, we can find universal similarities and they both may reach the same goal, but it is also OK to acknowledge that each travels a different path to reach that goal...

 

I would also agree that Buddhism IME, tends to be more of a "savior" type of religion whereas Taoism tends to focus on harmony and balance. Taoists focus on balance and immortality. Buddhists focus on enlightenment and transcendence. There is a difference between the two.

[manitou]

What incredibly wonderful responses! Thank you, everybody. I had heard the term Internal Alchemy used in these forums but didn't know if it pertained to the inner journey or not. I'm very happy to know that there are equivalents in each. In my experience, the essence can only be found through the inner journey.

 

5-ET, a rarely disagree with anything you ever say. But when you say seeing both religions as One is simplistic, I see it instead as enlightened. Go figure

[fiveelementtao]

What incredibly wonderful responses! Thank you, everybody. I had heard the term Internal Alchemy used in these forums but didn't know if it pertained to the inner journey or not. I'm very happy to know that there are equivalents in each. In my experience, the essence can only be found through the inner journey.

 

5-ET, a rarely disagree with anything you ever say. But when you say seeing both religions as One is simplistic, I see it instead as enlightened. Go figure

Well then perhaps those of us less enlightened folks need to first understand the differences before we can integrate them and become enlightened. In either case, I'm sure there is a place for both viewpoints..

[konchog uma]

I would also agree that Buddhism IME, tends to be more of a "savior" type of religion whereas Taoism tends to focus on harmony and balance. Taoists focus on balance and immortality. Buddhists focus on enlightenment and transcendence. There is a difference between the two.

 

for buddhists who say "everything is impermanent" immortality just means living in the eternal moment of now. And for daoists who don't believe the journey has an end, enlightenment implies some sort of stasis. But even immortals transcend the physical plane eventually, and enlightenment actually IS based on stasis, keeping the stasis of calm abiding and emptiness whilst moving about and doing ones dynamic actions and such. So i think these concepts are much misunderstood, and probably have a lot in common in and of themselves.

 

and between buddhism and daoism in general, there are more similarities than differences. To be balanced and attain longevity, one must clean the psyche and the energy body of afflictions and return the breath to that of a newborn childs breath. Same with transcendence and enlightenment. I think that immortality and enlightenment are real, although immortality is really longevity, and enlightenment is just a step on the path, the beginning of another journey. Why not try to incorporate both, is my personal attitude instead of drawing lines and saying, well these people are blue, and those people are red. Me, i think i will just paint myself purple and carry on my merry way.

 

some other similarities include focus on meditation as path, penetration of spiritual dimension, acknowledgement of attained ancestors as deities, pure internalism (external elixer schools aside), drive to realize the nature of reality, cultivation of purity and virtues, i would have to guess that the list just goes on and on so i will stop right there

 

for me, roughly speaking, i apply buddhism when i need structure and logic, a set of clear guidelines, or a philosophical foundation. I apply daoism when i need formless adaptation, instinct, or an energetic foundation.

[manitou]

Well then perhaps those of us less enlightened folks need to first understand the differences before we can integrate them and become enlightened. In either case, I'm sure there is a place for both viewpoints..

 

(...)

 

I just had another thought too. Was the voting open to everyone who READS the Tao Bums, or everyone who POSTS on the TaoBums? There are two different dynamics at play here. We, the posters, have evolved into a chemistry with each other over a period of time. I feel that the upward mobility, as a result of this chemistry, has been a spiral upwards. Just those with a Taoist viewpoint alone would have no impetus to evolve upward without challenge from a different perspective, our Buddhists in particular. I think the Buddhists here have a perverted little Taoist in their closets too, and are waiting for them to come out. Either way, both sides benefit. To remove this natural grate and motivation is to devolve in both areas, I think.

 

The quantity of Readers of the posts, however, are many and various. To put to a general vote something as pertinent as the chemistry of the posting community is a mistake.

 

I just feel a little like I've been rent in two, that's all. I'm not a Taoist, I'm not a Buddhist. I really don't want to be an ist of any sort. But it's through point and counterpoint and triangulation of everyone's ideas that the ESSENCE is found. I've been on my own mainly metaphysical inner journey forever, it seems. I bounced in here a few years ago and found a potpourri of wonderful ideas. My path to hopefully eventual enlightenment does involve the principle of reversion to the One, the same reversion to the One that it mentions in the Tao.

 

If anyone knows of any other discussion groups, in addition to this one, where the viewpoints are instead encouraged to merge, and which lead to Oneness and Love as the great essence of everything - the thing we get down to once the dross has been cleared away - if anyone knows of a discussion group like this, could you please let me know?

 

Barbara

[Birch]

I reckon it takes as many different viewpoints as possible in order to acheive love unity and one-ness realisation.

If you begin from a transcendant view of love and oneness but can't apply it across the wide variety of situations IMO this is leaving something out so it ain't love unity nor oneness you're after but your version of it. Which might be very nice, up until you decide what is and is not love-unity and oneness. At that point it probably gets not so nice:-)