Marblehead Posted October 23, 2011 Why does devotion need a gap between the subject and object of devotion? What a fantastic question!!! I get it, you dont want "foreign" concepts introduced into daoist discussions. Hehehe. Well, neither do I but this one is going amazingly well because the concepts are being discussed, not the belief systems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick Brown Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) double post server glitch!? Edited October 23, 2011 by Patrick Brown Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick Brown Posted October 23, 2011 Check this out: Tibetans fear that China will use the thorny issue of the Dalai Lama's religious succession to split the movement, with one new Lama named by exiles and one by China after his death. Source: http://in.reuters.co...-59548820110926 But of course the next Dalai Lama is bound to be Chinese! I don't think we'll see or even need another Dalai Lama as Tibetan Buddhism can stand up on it's own. For sure Lamaism will continue but the body of TB doesn't really need them anymore. I think TB belongs to the world now and it will find modes of expression other than the purely monastic. Teachers? Not sure they're really needed as TB is the most blatant expression of the truth, well as far as I can see, and doesn't really need any narrative. We should actually stop calling it Tibetan Buddhism as Mahayana suffices and as for Vajrayana well that's a secret never to be told!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 23, 2011 Interesting. We should actually stop calling it Tibetan Buddhism as Mahayana suffices and as for Vajrayana well that's a secret never to be told!! I just call the entire group "Buddhism" as I have no reason to argue any school within the category. But, of course, Hinduism is a different category all together. I'll just stay with my Taoist philosophy and let other people argue about religions. (Well, I do join in on that now and again. Hehehe.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I just call the entire group "Buddhism" as I have no reason to argue any school within the category. But, of course, Hinduism is a different category all together. I'll just stay with my Taoist philosophy and let other people argue about religions. (Well, I do join in on that now and again. Hehehe.) Tibetan Buddhist monks do eat meat. The Chinese Buddhist monks do not. You got rocks in your head. Please stay with your Taoist philosophy... Edited October 23, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 23, 2011 Hmmm...hammer to fit again...!!! And if the small hammer doesn't work I will use a bigger hammer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 23, 2011 Tibetan Buddhist monks do eat meat. The Chinese Buddhist monks do not. You got rocks in your head. Please stay with your Taoist philosophy... See? I told you I don't know anything about Buddhism! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted October 23, 2011 Tibetan Buddhist monks do eat meat. The Chinese Buddhist monks do not. You got rocks in your head. Please stay with your Taoist philosophy... No, his head is Marble. Can't you read? And what is it about meat again? So what do you think about Tibetan Monks eating meats and Chinese Monks not eating meats.? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick Brown Posted October 23, 2011 I think the jibe about TB monks eating meat might be a reference to idle gossip about them being a bunch of queers and sexual deviants! I doubt that this is true but then again it doesn't really matter as Tibetan Buddhism is dead! Long live Tibetan Buddhism!! The irony is that by trying to repress certain ideas the Chinese have simply given Tibetan / Mahayana Buddhism to the whole world. As for Vajrayana, well, as said it's a secret never to be told. So why has China been so successful throughout the ages? Well Lao Tze told us when he was being ironic: "stuff bellies and empty hearts"! And just for those that still don't get the core teaching of Mahayana Buddhism, "non-duality". Balance that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jetsun Posted October 23, 2011 And what is it about meat again? So what do you think about Tibetan Monks eating meats and Chinese Monks not eating meats.? Many Tibetan monks try to become vegetarian but because of their constitution coming from a mountain people whose diet has consisted of a lot of meat through the ages it isn't good for their health, for example the Dalai Lama tried to become vegetarian when he was younger but his heath deteriorated so rapidly that his doctors told him to eat meat again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Hi folks, I'm coming in a bit late. I apologize if I'm duplicating exactly what someone else posted, I haven't read the entire thread. This response is in response to the OP. I see that it is possible to view things alternatively if 'time' is taken out of the equation. We know that time is relative and virtually an illusion. My personal view is that this is somehow tied up with quantum physics, as far as the smallest form of matter that we can detect turns out to be both a particle and a wave at the same, somehow magically. If you zoom out and look at this fact, I think it can be viewed as the intersection of time and space, as a particle takes up space, whereas a wave (of probability) would necessarily take up time. Therefore: the junction of time and space. If you took a folding Chinese lantern and had it pulled out to its lantern shape, this would be analogous of time and space both together, in my illustration. If you crunch the lantern down so it's into a disc shape, this is when time has been removed. However, because the lantern is crunched down, there is a totality of the lantern that can be seen all at once (if you're, say, the size of a praying mantis and were looking out over the top of the folded lantern). Time has been removed, and different things can be seen. Getting back to karma. Karma is suitable for the lantern when it is extended, because we're still dealing with time. But in reality, it's all Here Now, in a state of Is-Ness. For the person who has been able to transcend spiritual framework and has lived a life of true self-examination, the third eye vision occurs. I just see karma as moving Is-ness. We are our ancestors, we are our descendants. I dunno, is that Taoist? Edited October 23, 2011 by manitou Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 23, 2011 I dunno, is that Taoist? Hehehe. Kinda' but ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChiDragon Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) 1. No, his head is Marble. Can't you read? 2. And what is it about meat again? So what do you think about Tibetan Monks eating meats and Chinese Monks not eating meats.? hmmm... 1. Isn't Marble a piece of rock...??? 2. The Tibet mountains have geological restrictions. The reason Tibetan Monks eat meat is because there are limited foods in the mountains but abundance of animals like the sheep and Yaks(a bison like animal). It seems like these animals are the major source of foods for them. Edited October 23, 2011 by ChiDragon Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 23, 2011 hmmm... 1. Isn't Marble a piece of rock...??? Marble is one of the hardest rocks on the planet. But if rubbed properly it sparkles like a most precious gem. Yeah, Eskimoes don't eat many veggies either. They just can't grow them in the snow for some reason. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XieJia Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) Hmmm...hammer to fit again...!!! You got rocks in your head. And if the small hammer doesn't work I will use a bigger hammer. hmmm... 1. Isn't Marble a piece of rock...??? Marble is one of the hardest rocks on the planet. But if rubbed properly it sparkles like a most precious gem. !!!! What !!!! "Marble has a hardness rating of 2.5 – 5 on Moh's scale." I think that summarize the thread very nicely. @Marblehead Apologies of using your head boss @Manitou I like what you wrote. But is it Daoism? I wouldn't know as well. In statistics, Would someone explain to me briefly 'Markov Property'? Edited October 24, 2011 by XieJia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawei Posted October 24, 2011 To me, Dao is a karmic process; Yin and Yang fully explain it and we see it in life. It might be interesting to see where the DDJ talks in karmic cycles but I am not a big fan of believing Lao Zi had all the answers. Whether Taoist teach an exact idea that the Buddhist try to expand it as, I am not sure. Within Medical Qigong, which combines the medical, physical, metaphysical, energetic, and spiritual aspects there are clear tendencies towards karmic ideas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patrick Brown Posted October 24, 2011 but I am not a big fan of believing Lao Zi had all the answers. I think you've hit the nail on the head with that comment! I love the Tao Te Ching but I've always sensed something was not being said! It's hard to explain but perhaps the silence between the words is where the real insights lay. "the sage is alone and depressed" Beyond this words no longer have any meaning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gerard Posted October 24, 2011 If people stop differentiating amongst spiritual practices (Daoism and Buddhism in this instance), clinging to concepts and ideas only creates more dissatisfaction, limiting our spiritual growth. These two practices are just individual understandings of a eternal, self-contained and multidimensional reality that manifests inside all of us according to our karmic evolution. There is no end to be reached and no beginning to start with. The final dissolution of the ego (karmic imprints, desires and tendencies), which has adopted a myriad of forms during its journey, means revealing within one's mind the point of equilibrium: nirvana, Dao, God. It is indeed a journey and a very long one. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 24, 2011 To me, Dao is a karmic process; Yin and Yang fully explain it and we see it in life. It might be interesting to see where the DDJ talks in karmic cycles but I am not a big fan of believing Lao Zi had all the answers. Yes, there are the concepts of cycles and reversion in Taoist Philosophy. But I still think it would be an error to link these concepts with the Buddhist concept of karma and especially reincarnation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 24, 2011 I think you've hit the nail on the head with that comment! I love the Tao Te Ching but I've always sensed something was not being said! It's hard to explain but perhaps the silence between the words is where the real insights lay. I have previously confessed that after my first readings of the TTC I felt there was something missing - some things unsaid. It wasn't until after reading The Chuang Tzu the first time that some of the spoken words of the TTC became apparent. I have always felt that Taoist Philosophy is incomplete without The Chuang Tzu. (Others have argued with me in this regard.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
