a whole bunch o' newbie questions

[Ian]

If my picture is different from that of others, it's not because it's not humble enough I don't think

 

Didn't suggest that "it" wasn't humble enough, suggested that "you" could, perhaps, usefully be humbler. (as could I, naturally, and many people.)

 

I'm not inviting anyone to feel the same way about buddhism, and I respectfully decline any and all invitations to feel the way someone else feels about buddhism.

 

I'm afraid I consider this directly and completely untrue. You are clearly inviting others to feel the same way about buddhism: what possibly other reason is there to state your opinion so lucidly and justify it so thoroughly? All you're really saying here is "please don't challenge my opinions because I'm a special case, albeit in some way not altogether clearly defined."

 

If all you had said was "I don't like it" that's fine. Not challengeable. I don't like much of what passes for Buddhism myself, come to that. But you made several other assertions about the nature of buddhism, all buddhism, without qualifying them at all, and you should expect to be called on it.

 

You can use Derrick Jensen's experience to suggest that all buddhists are hypersensitive and thereby imply that any disagreement in this thread must be the buddhists' fault, not yours, but that's just misdirection.

 

I think.

[Taomeow]

If we were in the same room I might try to kiss you - if I could just climb out of this damned armchair.

 

For a good kiss, I'd join you in that armchair, baby.

 

Online flirting over and out.

 

Thanks for elucidating on your stance, I appreciate the effort and respect the overall picture. No TV? You ARE special. Even I have one.

[VeeCee]

No TV? You ARE special. Even I have one.

 

Actually I gave up tv about 7 years ago. Life is better without it. I find that I really don't miss it, and when I do watch it now, I wonder what the appeal was. Try it- you might like it.

 

V.

[Taomeow]

Actually I gave up tv about 7 years ago. Life is better without it. I find that I really don't miss it, and when I do watch it now, I wonder what the appeal was. Try it- you might like it.

 

V.

 

Oh, I never watched it for years, I started when a family member was very ill and couldn't do much else. I just kept him company. For myself, I never turn it on (no attachment! )

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[Taomeow]

not to worry. some other attachment will have sprung up in it's place.

 

True. Some other attachments I meticulously cultivate. E.g., attachment to a regular taijiquan practice, to my cup of coffee, to the taoist Triple Treasure of Perfection, Nondecay, Immortality, to name a few. I like attachments. In fact, I call them something else. I call them connections. Relationships. The Glorious Glue that holds reality together.

 

It's all a matter of choosing them wisely to me, not severing them indiscriminately. I still can't get over having sold a Chinese bracelet I got as a gift and was deeply attached to till one dark day someone who thought I could do without it talked me into selling it. It was years ago and I still regret having disattached myself from a friend, and still feel incomplete without its cool, caressing weight on my wrist.

 

It's losing attachments sloppily and unconsciously, or else sacrificing them (counterintuitively) on the altar of a man-made ideology, religion, dogma, that I see as a problem, not gaining them assertively and cultivating them in full awareness. People you used to be close with and no longer are. Places where you were happy that you will never see again. Biodiversity on Earth. Your own tears shed for someone who wasn't worth it. As a John Lennon song goes, "in my life, I've loved them all."

[VeeCee]

True. Some other attachments I meticulously cultivate. E.g., attachment to a regular taijiquan practice, to my cup of coffee, to the taoist Triple Treasure of Perfection, Nondecay, Immortality, to name a few. I like attachments. In fact, I call them something else. I call them connections. Relationships. The Glorious Glue that holds reality together.

 

Glorious Glue - I like that.

[Wayfarer64]

Hi again Taomeow-

 

I guess this is not the best vihicle to express my thinking - but I am not saying "anything goes " as to Taoist Practice. The way IS a razons' edge...

 

I am saying that the manifestations we go through in life, and in our thinking, - become the path no matter where the path leads us- if it gets us to be "one with the Tao " -then we got most of it right...

 

There are many paths through and on the Tao... many may be false, - in that they lead to confussion and not clarity- but they may be the path to knowledge none the less.

 

everything in its own time

[watercourseway]

i am learning much from your replies. though i'm sure the discussion is far from over i would like to thank all of you for your input thus far! wu wei is a meditation practice in itself right? so when one "does" an activity like zhan zhuang would the correct approach be to have the mind fixated on nothing, or on some sort of visualization or internal movement? would using the mind an intent be "un-wu wei?"

[Todd]

i am learning much from your replies. though i'm sure the discussion is far from over i would like to thank all of you for your input thus far! wu wei is a meditation practice in itself right? so when one "does" an activity like zhan zhuang would the correct approach be to have the mind fixated on nothing, or on some sort of visualization or internal movement? would using the mind an intent be "un-wu wei?"

 

Fixate on nothing. Meaning: don't fixate. Follow the movement within stillness. Enjoy yourself.

 

Or fixate on whatever you happen to be fixated on... you might ask yourself how its working out from time to time.

 

I fixate all the time, and I'm not proud of it. I might not exist though, so I guess it might be alright.

Edited September 14, 2007 by Todd

[Ian]

i am learning much from your replies. though i'm sure the discussion is far from over i would like to thank all of you for your input thus far! wu wei is a meditation practice in itself right? so when one "does" an activity like zhan zhuang would the correct approach be to have the mind fixated on nothing, or on some sort of visualization or internal movement? would using the mind an intent be "un-wu wei?"

 

 

What I've been taught, emphatically, is that to get even near to doing nothing, you have to do something that interrupts and replaces all the stuff your mind usually does. For quite a while.

 

My suggestion would be to feel the sensation of your feet on the ground. Keep patiently returning to it whenever you notice you're not there. But there's plenty of alternatives.

[freeform]

My suggestion would be to feel the sensation of your feet on the ground. Keep patiently returning to it whenever you notice you're not there. But there's plenty of alternatives.

 

Yes - going physical often quietens the mind - I normally pay attention to how my body expands and contracts with each breath... A couple of times I've managed to humm in such a way that I could feel the vibration move from my chest to the bottom of my feet - that really shut me up! lol

[Wayfarer64]

 

 

To a taoist, it is nothing of the kind. Emptiness and manifestation is a cycle, and to the same extent that "being is rooted in nonbeing," the opposite is every bit as true -- "nonbeing is rooted in being." Taoism, in other words, is isomorphic (you can go either way between emptiness and the ten thousand things, both directions are normal and natural, and neither direction is "wrong"); whereas buddhism is anisomorphic -- to a buddhist, there's only one "right" direction, towards nonbeing, emptiness, away from being, manifestation.

 

But like I said in the very first post entered above, it doesn't yield to words easily, if at all, but I've an experiential frame of reference. I did buddhism before I discovered taoism. I was following all the prescriptive and prohibitive moves -- right thoughts, right actions, right words, yada yada. Meditations were wonderful and took me out of my body and into emptiness... and eventually my body rebelled and retaliated. Taoist meditations were difficult and painful and extracted me from emptiness (which, when accessed via taoist practices, turned out to be dynamic and creative albeit empty, unlike buddhist emptiness that was lethargic and unimaginative), and put me back into my body and taught my mind to stay put in my body and do the housecleaning. So it did. And when it did, the meaning of the I Ching's hexagram "Difficulty In The Beginning," which is understood as the inevitabe filling of the space between heaven and earth with individualized beings, became clear to me. It became clear that seekers of emptiness who would clean the space between heaven and earth of the process of individuation of beings are basically hostile to life on earth--

what Laozi calls "the followers of Death." Buddhist emptiness is not compatible with life -- one must transcend life in order to "get there." Taoist emptiness is a tool I use in taiji, e.g., and for ten thousand other things too... It's cool... It's alive.

 

Thanks TM- you say it well, for something that we supossedly can't articulate!-

Edited September 14, 2007 by Wayfarer64

[beancurdturtle]

To a taoist, it is nothing of the kind. Emptiness and manifestation is a cycle, and to the same extent that "being is rooted in nonbeing," the opposite is every bit as true -- "nonbeing is rooted in being." Taoism, in other words, is isomorphic (you can go either way between emptiness and the ten thousand things, both directions are normal and natural, and neither direction is "wrong"); whereas buddhism is anisomorphic -- to a buddhist, there's only one "right" direction, towards nonbeing, emptiness, away from being, manifestation.

 

But like I said in the very first post entered above, it doesn't yield to words easily, if at all, but I've an experiential frame of reference. I did buddhism before I discovered taoism. I was following all the prescriptive and prohibitive moves -- right thoughts, right actions, right words, yada yada. Meditations were wonderful and took me out of my body and into emptiness... and eventually my body rebelled and retaliated. Taoist meditations were difficult and painful and extracted me from emptiness (which, when accessed via taoist practices, turned out to be dynamic and creative albeit empty, unlike buddhist emptiness that was lethargic and unimaginative), and put me back into my body and taught my mind to stay put in my body and do the housecleaning. So it did. And when it did, the meaning of the I Ching's hexagram "Difficulty In The Beginning," which is understood as the inevitabe filling of the space between heaven and earth with individualized beings, became clear to me. It became clear that seekers of emptiness who would clean the space between heaven and earth of the process of individuation of beings are basically hostile to life on earth--

what Laozi calls "the followers of Death." Buddhist emptiness is not compatible with life -- one must transcend life in order to "get there." Taoist emptiness is a tool I use in taiji, e.g., and for ten thousand other things too... It's cool... It's alive.

Well, for what it's worth to you, you've got a "Philosophical Taoist" here that concurs with a great deal of what you said.

 

begin BGBI (base generalization, biased interpretation) mode...

 

By my experience:

- Taoism is about ways of being and doing that render us integral with the universe, resulting in peace and contentment. Fully engaged, and frictionless.

 

- Buddhism is about working to create a separateness of self to distance us from "suffering" or what have you. It's a bit like fighting gravity in my experience.

 

... end BGBI mode

 

But if Buddhism turns your crank and does you well - have at it.

 

Peace,

[forestofsouls]

 

- Buddhism is about working to create a separateness of self to distance us from "suffering" or what have you. It's a bit like fighting gravity in my experience.

 

... end BGBI mode

 

But if Buddhism turns your crank and does you well - have at it.

 

Peace,

Sorry, though you're entitled to your opinion, I still feel the need to clarify because this is a public forum with millions of hits, etc. etc. This statement is exactly the opposite of everything I've found Buddhism to be. When I speak of Buddhism, I've learned in the Theraveda and Zen traditions, so that's what I'm talking about.

 

Buddhism teaches anatta, or no self. The self only exists in a state of ignorance. Buddhism is about carefully examining what we take to be the self until we discover that it is, in fact, empty of a real, enduring, substance. All things exist interdependently. I don't know where you get this idea that Buddhism teaches separateness of self.

 

Buddhism embraces pain and suffering as valid parts of the human experience to be experienced, and experienced fully. Every one of my teachers has emphasized this. Buddhism isn't about denying pain and suffering, but rushing into it with open arms. When there is pain in meditation, I've been taught to sit with the pain (within reason, of course, no need to become crippled), to be with it, to accept it. Usually the mind tries to avoid it, or the body tries to avoid. The Buddhist teaching I've learned says to drive right into that pain and know it for what it is.

 

Buddhism, at its base, is about investigation. Watching things very carefully. In this way, it is very common- sensical and scientific.

 

Who is teaching Buddhism the way you and Taomeow describe? I'd stay away from them.

[beancurdturtle]

Sorry, though you're entitled to your opinion, I still feel the need to clarify because this is a public forum with millions of hits, etc. etc. This statement is exactly the opposite of everything I've found Buddhism to be. When I speak of Buddhism, I've learned in the Theraveda and Zen traditions, so that's what I'm talking about.

 

Who is teaching Buddhism the way you and Taomeow describe? I'd stay away from them.

No need to be sorry. Referencing your closing statement, we are in agreement.

 

What I've learned of Zen traditions would be in alignment with what you say. Zen would also NOT fit neatly into the "Buddhism in a Nutshell" description I rendered. So we don't exactly have conflicting opinions - we're just not meshing on the same gears.

 

I was overgeneralizing based on the Buddhist schools and the Buddhists I've had the most exposure to. There are Taoists that would say my sound-bite on Taoism is misguided as well.

 

Every larger school of thought or action has it's quirky corner. I happen to live in what's commonly thought to be a quirky corner of the whole of Taoism myself.

 

Thanks for your clarification,

 

--

P.s. I should add that Lin Ai Wei's posts have been helpful for me to better understand the Buddhist traditions he follows. If my only exposure to Buddhism was through knowing you and Ai Wei, my description might be quite different.

Edited September 15, 2007 by beancurdturtle

[林愛偉]

Buddhism has no goal of anything. Emptiness is a state of mind when perceived and doesn't exist

when not perceived. In the absence of perceptionand non perception there is no emptiness and there is not NO emptiness.

 

Emptiness in Buddhism is Emptiness in Daoism. It is impossible that there are 2 different Emptinesses.

It is all the same mind! Not 6 billion different ones. It is thus there are different characteristics.. BUT THE SAME MIND.

 

Dao, Buddhism... difference anyone? Chinese, American... still human?

 

All of this arguement of the differences of the word Buddhism and DAoism and the misconceptions that are debated, and not one of us is enlightened yet!

 

What a waste!

 

Dao Fa Ziran.... 道法自然是什么意思呢？ 就是这个意思； 道的教法就是自然。

Translation: Dao Fa Ziran , what does it mean? Exactly that! Teachings of Dao are natural.

 

Nothing more, nothing less, exactly that. Is it up to the individual translating it? NO!

 

Why has "Daoism" incorporated Confucian and Buddhist cultivation? Because early on people were just people, no moral, virtue, or very little of it. THe methods coincide becauses they are just that, METHODS!

 

Too much mysterious belief in a godforsaken word DAO and BUDDHA! Its not mysterious, WAKE UP EVERYONE!

 

Its just a damn word because us humans can only grasp things by sight and intellect. Unless you are cultivating meditation, contemplation without bias (duality), one will only be able to taste just the scent of it all.

 

There is nothing to get to, nothing to return to, nothign to make the body become more natural than it is.. What a misleading thought to believe the body needs to remember some early stage of development function. It doesn't, because it itself is of the fundamental "natural" source. What is it remembering? how is it remebering, where is the mind? Is there a mind?

 

Stop Acting like the idea of a Daoist and cultivate the way. Stop Acting like the idea of a Buddhist and start cultivating the way. Both are the same! Don't contemplate the Dao, drop ideas of it and Thus.... Stop contemplating the Buddhas AND BECOME ONE! Both are the same when there is totaly perfection of cultivation.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

Lin

Edited September 15, 2007 by 林愛偉

[Cameron]

I don't want to just take over the board with this but I find it promising that Lama Dorje is considered both an enlightened Bodhisattva and initiate into the secret clans of Taoism.

 

Sounds like from what Max says all the different schools have the same teaching but just different cultural forms or whatever.

 

Anyway..carry on with the Buddhism vs. Taoism thing..or not!

Edited September 15, 2007 by Cameron

[林愛偉]

I don't want to just take over the board with this but I find it promising that Lama Dorje is considered both an enlightened Bodhisattva and initiate into the secret clans of Taoism.

 

Sounds like from what Max says all the different schools have the same teaching but just different cultural forms or whatever.

 

Anyway..carry on with the Buddhism vs. Taoism thing..or not!

 

 

Real "Daoist" cultivators with skill, virtue and over all WISDOM look at one for their capacity to attain,

virtue and wisdom...they look for Heaven's Blessings on the being, and then transmit what they feel that

being can utilize, has the capacity to cultivate, despite the cultivation background.

This is why Daoist cultivation looks like a mystery, because not everyone has the full, complete story, only

a select High Virtuous Ones do, and it is the same in terms of high level cultivation in "Buddhism". But with

Buddhism, all the answers are right there in the Sutras, but people just don't have the capacity to comprehend them.

 

You don't give a murderer just out of jail a gun, just because he says he's sorry and will never do it again, that he has changed. It is the same thing with methods to attain abilities and the like.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

Edited September 15, 2007 by 林愛偉

[Taomeow]

"Who is teaching Buddhism the way I perceive it?"

 

Well, as a great Russian tongue-in-cheek guru, Koz'ma Prutkov, put it a couple centuries ago, "If anyone says one can embrace the infinite, spit him in the eye!" So obviously I'm not going to assert I've learned all of buddhism from everybody who ever taught it... have you, Lin Ai Wei? If you said yes, I'd have to follow the funny guru's suggestion (albeit virtually). If you said no, then I'd have to ask this... so then, why exactly do you think whoever taught you buddhism the way you perceive it has done a better job than whoever taught me? Because you're currently into it and I'm not? Well, how about... as the outcome of what I've learned I've killed the buddha, just as the Buddha himself said I should... while you're still attached... how about that? Maybe whoever taught me did do a decent buddhist job after all, what d'you reckon?

 

If you seriously want to know, however... My first teacher was the first Westerner ever accepted as a monk to a Dzogchen (Tibetan Buddhist) monastery. He spent twelve years there (and three years before that, at the door, trying to get admitted and being turned down every day. They finally took him because he proved he meant business by not being discouraged by a thousand rejections.) He was a compassionate -- and passionate (surprise surprise!) -- and totally unique person. He was the one I heard the word "tao" from for the first time (although he wasn't a taoist -- but he was a scholar, among other things, and also perceptive enough to understand he must mention this word to me, specifically. I didn't have a clue. I asked him what tao was like. His response I will never forget: "Tao is like you." Didn't mean anything to me then, meant a lot a few years later.)

 

By the way, you know what ultimately turned me off buddhism? I'm a fairly thorough investigator of subjects that interest me, also a Speedy Gonzalez of reading (three books in as many hours is quite realistic for me), so at some point I read pretty much everything on buddhism I could lay my hands on, and all the classics ever translated of course, and this one interesting word, "ignorance," kept being offered as the ultimate cause of everything we all know and love as the human condition. "Ignorance" seemed to be the true almighty god of buddhism, the creator of worlds, the destroyer of reality. However, for something this powerful, something that winds up being credited with acting as the cause of everything that ever happened in human history, its own origins seem a bit obscure. Who, and why, has put Ignorance in charge of the whole process of life? There's assorted creation myths I'm familiar with, Hindu to Zoroastrian to Babylonian to folk Chinese (which differ from scholarly taoist "uncreated" ones) to Judeo-Christian to modern scientific (Big Bang and all that jazz), and they all have someone, something, some event or entity or process, for the "main event" that has shaped reality as we now know it. Well, I looked high and low, and in Buddhism, this main event, process, entity, whatever it is, the Creator of All and the General Theory of Everything, is Ignorance. With no explanations offered as to the source of Ignorance itself and of Ignorance's omnipotence, only with prescriptions as to methods to overcome it. But this totally makes no sense to me. I am supposed to overcome a state that is just offered as a "given" without any rhyme or reason to it? You're Ignorant, they say, and everything you are is the outcome of Ignorance. Fine. But what the hell is Ignorance the Almighty, my creator and everybody else's, the outcome of? Huh?..

 

If I ever meet a Buddhist who has a good answer to this question, I'll take a second look at the rest of the deal. So any missionaries out there... here's your chance! Explain to me why the world (a funky place, have you noticed?.. and not all that simple and obvious, have you been paying attention?..) has been created by Ignorance of all things, and I might accept the rest of it... just please don't offer any demagogic or righteously-indignant sermons... an honest Ignorance Sutra an average Ignorant taoist mind like mine can grasp will do. Game anyone?

[林愛偉]

"Who is teaching Buddhism the way I perceive it?"

 

Well, as a great Russian tongue-in-cheek guru, Koz'ma Prutkov, put it a couple centuries ago, "If anyone says one can embrace the infinite, spit him in the eye!" So obviously I'm not going to assert I've learned all of buddhism from everybody who ever taught it... have you, Lin Ai Wei? If you said yes, I'd have to follow the funny guru's suggestion (albeit virtually). If you said no, then I'd have to ask this... so then, why exactly do you think whoever taught you buddhism the way you perceive it has done a better job than whoever taught me? Because you're currently into it and I'm not? Well, how about... as the outcome of what I've learned I've killed the buddha, just as the Buddha himself said I should... while you're still attached... how about that? Maybe whoever taught me did do a decent buddhist job after all, what d'you reckon?

 

If you seriously want to know, however... My first teacher was the first Westerner ever accepted as a monk to a Dzogchen (Tibetan Buddhist) monastery. He spent twelve years there (and three years before that, at the door, trying to get admitted and being turned down every day. They finally took him because he proved he meant business by not being discouraged by a thousand rejections.) He was a compassionate -- and passionate (surprise surprise!) -- and totally unique person. He was the one I heard the word "tao" from for the first time (although he wasn't a taoist -- but he was a scholar, among other things, and also perceptive enough to understand he must mention this word to me, specifically. I didn't have a clue. I asked him what tao was like. His response I will never forget: "Tao is like you." Didn't mean anything to me then, meant a lot a few years later.)

 

By the way, you know what ultimately turned me off buddhism? I'm a fairly thorough investigator of subjects that interest me, also a Speedy Gonzalez of reading (three books in as many hours is quite realistic for me), so at some point I read pretty much everything on buddhism I could lay my hands on, and all the classics ever translated of course, and this one interesting word, "ignorance," kept being offered as the ultimate cause of everything we all know and love as the human condition. "Ignorance" seemed to be the true almighty god of buddhism, the creator of worlds, the destroyer of reality. However, for something this powerful, something that winds up being credited with acting as the cause of everything that ever happened in human history, its own origins seem a bit obscure. Who, and why, has put Ignorance in charge of the whole process of life? There's assorted creation myths I'm familiar with, Hindu to Zoroastrian to Babylonian to folk Chinese (which differ from scholarly taoist "uncreated" ones) to Judeo-Christian to modern scientific (Big Bang and all that jazz), and they all have someone, something, some event or entity or process, for the "main event" that has shaped reality as we now know it. Well, I looked high and low, and in Buddhism, this main event, process, entity, whatever it is, the Creator of All and the General Theory of Everything, is Ignorance. With no explanations offered as to the source of Ignorance itself and of Ignorance's omnipotence, only with prescriptions as to methods to overcome it. But this totally makes no sense to me. I am supposed to overcome a state that is just offered as a "given" without any rhyme or reason to it? You're Ignorant, they say, and everything you are is the outcome of Ignorance. Fine. But what the hell is Ignorance the Almighty, my creator and everybody else's, the outcome of? Huh?..

 

If I ever meet a Buddhist who has a good answer to this question, I'll take a second look at the rest of the deal. So any missionaries out there... here's your chance! Explain to me why the world (a funky place, have you noticed?.. and not all that simple and obvious, have you been paying attention?..) has been created by Ignorance of all things, and I might accept the rest of it... just please don't offer any demagogic or righteously-indignant sermons... an honest Ignorance Sutra an average Ignorant taoist mind like mine can grasp will do. Game anyone?

 

Two Words:

 

放下

[Taomeow]

Two Words:

 

放下

 

Do they mean "showing off my Chinese?" I think I mentioned the woefully early stage of my Chinese studies (and what about others who haven't done any?) --

I am fluent in several languages though, would you like to continue in the ones I know and you don't? just to even out the playground?

[林愛偉]

Do they mean "showing off my Chinese?" I think I mentioned the woefully early stage of my Chinese studies (and what about others who haven't done any?) --

I am fluent in several languages though, would you like to continue in the ones I know and you don't? just to even out the playground?

 

 

You seem to think I was attacking someone in my posting before I wrote the chinese characters.

 

Out of all the books you read, sutras, daoist texts, and the like, there is still an idea of a self.

 

放下 means to Put down.

 

Listing who my teachers are does no certification to my mind, nor does it prove to others I have something.

Listing what I cultivate, and all the "things" I have studied does nothing for living beings. It only displays arrogance and a sense of superiority.

 

I could care less who thinks what about my studies. It is of no service to others and myself. You obviously have

no good fate with certain teachings. That doesn't prove them to be ineffective, wrong and incomplete. The teachings aren't the problem...its the living beings.

 

Besides, one can study for years the greatest of teachings, and not even come close to its true meaning. Its not the quantity in studies, but the quality of cultivation. And even with meditation, it isn't certain one will attain. It is up to their past causes for attainment on a proper path.

 

Peace and Blessings to you fellow cultivator.

 

Lin

Edited September 15, 2007 by 林愛偉

[beancurdturtle]

Buddhist, Taoist, Whateverist; practices, paths, arts, schools, the 10 thousand different methods for cultivation are all abstractions from what is, They are all descriptive frameworks. The human mind takes comfort in defining and comparing things, even when there is no difference. And oneupsmanship is a further abstraction.

 

I don't think there is a Taoism vs. Buddhism argument. I do think that my understanding of both is steeped in my personal bias and relative ignorance. And when I give my understanding of one thing and another, I usually disclose my ignorance and bias in one way or another.

 

Buddhist, Taoist, Whateverist; practices, paths, arts, and schools are all tools of comfort for our human minds. If it's a good tool. it's worth using. Some people are more comfortable with one tool than another. Comparing and oneupsmanship are irrelevant.

 

If I tell you my way, I am telling you what works for me. If you tell me my way is wrong, you are full of shite. If my perception of your way is wrong, than I am guilty of ignorance. If you hear me say your way is wrong or less right than my way, then I am guilty of poor communication - I didn't mean to say that.

 

What I do trust is the fact that there is one integral source that is also everything sourced. I happen to call it the Tao. My label could be wrong, but I have a label because that's a human thing - and I am human, I trust that as well.

 

Any perception of rightness or betterness is only based on our perception (biases and relative knowledge/ignorance) of the descriptive framework. Perception and belief are always at least one step away from truth. Underneath it all, my integral source/manifestation is no different from yours. I'm with you on that point Brother Lin.

 

Peace,

[beancurdturtle]

"Ignorance" seemed to be the true almighty god of buddhism, the creator of worlds, the destroyer of reality. However, for something this powerful, something that winds up being credited with acting as the cause of everything that ever happened in human history, its own origins seem a bit obscure. Who, and why, has put Ignorance in charge of the whole process of life? Game anyone?

No game. Truth. And not from a Buddhist, but it answers your question.

 

You are unable to find an answer for this because you are looking for an explanation or rationalization. This is your nature I feel as you practice "scientific (magical) taoism."

 

End of my answer; now some comments...

 

This "ignorance" feels to me like it is the one integral source that is also everything sourced. We can't know it, it can't know itself. To be honest I am only grasping at some feeling of familiarity with this use of the word "ignorance." with a twist of semantics and acceptance I could say the Tao is ignorance.

 

The Tao itself manifests nothing and no thought, it is ignorance in this state. When abstracted to yin/yang, matter, perceptions, biases, and the 10 thousand myriad things, it loses it's ignorance.

 

I'll stop here for two reasons: 1. If I keep trying to follow this thought right now, it will become muddied. and 2. I am somehow reminded of a quote from American Beauty, "Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world I feel like I can't take it... and my heart is going to cave in."

 

I wish there was more ignorance, more innocence, more naivete, more beauty, more hearts caving in...

 

I wish fatherpaul was here to bring perspective to "Taoism vs. Buddhism"

 

Peace,