Jeff Posted January 30, 2017 Does free will exist at the level you are talking about? Independent of circumstances or is the helping a spontaneous event being witnessed? IMHO, fully having "free will" only exists for a sage/immortal/Self/Buddha/Christ type. As until the issues and fears are fully released, one is still subject to subconscious autopilot responses. But, relative freedom increases as mental clarity increases. Kind of like with lots of issues and fears, anything can make you angry and respond. And as you clear out the crap, it becomes increasingly harder to cause an anger response. At the same time, you will notice that you just have less mental threads going on in your mind. More focused on the moment and not projecting past fears on the future. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Do you notice that you are imposing your views of Self in your concept of the Dao? Where does the Tao Te Ching talk about anything like Self? Also, this point on ultimate Self is the fundamental break that Buddha initiated. Emptiness is not the same as Self. Finally, I am not trying to say anyone is right or wrong, just push the point of greater discernment. The Te in the Tao Te Ching is the Self, which is non-different from the Dao. It is wrongly translated as "virtue". And its my personal opinion that the "emptiness" of Buddha is the Same as the Absolute Self or Brahman or Atman. It (Vedantic Atman) is wrongly conflated with the limited self (Jiva) that the Buddha called "Anatta". Ask any Advaita Vedantin and they will tell you. If you say there is no "Self", then all you have to do is ask "Who's saying that?" Edited January 30, 2017 by dwai 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted January 30, 2017 The Te in the Tao Te Ching is the Self, which is non-different from the Dao. It is wrongly translated as "virtue". And its my personal opinion that the "emptiness" of Buddha is the Same as the Absolute Self or Brahman or Atman. It (Vedantic Atman) is wrongly conflated with the limited self (Jiva) that the Buddha called "Anatta". Ask any Advaita Vedantin and they will tell you. If you say there is no "Self", then all you have to do is ask "Who's saying that?" So all Buddhists and Taoists are just mistaken/confused regarding their understandings/realizations? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johndoe2012 Posted January 30, 2017 The Te in the Tao Te Ching is the Self, which is non-different from the Dao. It is wrongly translated as "virtue". And its my personal opinion that the "emptiness" of Buddha is the Same as the Absolute Self or Brahman or Atman. It (Vedantic Atman) is wrongly conflated with the limited self (Jiva) that the Buddha called "Anatta". Ask any Advaita Vedantin and they will tell you. If you say there is no "Self", then all you have to do is ask "Who's saying that?" How do know know there is a 'who' saying that? Language does not prove a who. What if language did not have who, then there would be no independent people? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johndoe2012 Posted January 30, 2017 IMHO, fully having "free will" only exists for a sage/immortal/Self/Buddha/Christ type. As until the issues and fears are fully released, one is still subject to subconscious autopilot responses. But, relative freedom increases as mental clarity increases. Kind of like with lots of issues and fears, anything can make you angry and respond. And as you clear out the crap, it becomes increasingly harder to cause an anger response. At the same time, you will notice that you just have less mental threads going on in your mind. More focused on the moment and not projecting past fears on the future. A Buddha has zero issues or what is your view? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted January 30, 2017 A Buddha has zero issues or what is your view? Ok, now we are getting really esoteric. With a Buddha, it depends if a buddha "manifests" or not. The "desire" to help other senitient beings realize is like a "last issue" that keeps a Buddha around. But, the Buddha is not attached to the results and hence is still a Buddha. That is like in the above TTC 28 quote regarding a ruler immortal taking a "useful form". But, ultimately a new Buddha comes along and sort of replaces/supersedes the previous one. Then the previous one is done/retired. This replace/retire concept is shown in my quoted gospel of Thomas text... 2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]" After their tour of duty helping sentient beings, "they will rest". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) After their tour of duty helping sentient beings, "they will rest". The way this reads a Buddha is a soldier of some kind what is a Buddha? Edited January 30, 2017 by Pilgrim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted January 30, 2017 The way this reads a Buddha is a soldier of some kind what is a Buddha? That specific text is about a "Christ", as mystical christianity has a similar, but slightly different concept. But, to your Buddha question... A buddha is one who has fully realized "emptiness". In later buddhist traditions, they introduced the "vow" to help sentient beings realize as part of the highest realization. Such a buddha it classic descriptions has three kayas (bodies at different layers of reality - the carved block in TTC 28) to help out and teach at the various levels of "reality". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Was Siddhartha from the book by Hermann Hesse the first Buddha? It is a work of fiction but it sure did a good job of explaining the process of becoming a Buddha or so it seemed anyway. Have you read the book? Is that what a Buddha is? Just noticed a better place for this Question copying content there now. http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/43259-jivanmuktas-and-bodhisattvas/ Edited January 30, 2017 by Pilgrim Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) What makes you say that Te is not virtue? Or even sincerity. Or conscience?It is not some contrived moral value. It is primordial...a gateway to the Dao. So when it is translated to be "virtue" in a sense it is correct, but not exactly. This is what our system of daoist nei Gong/Dao gong (via temple style tai chi) teaches. Accessing the Te (purifying/removing things that obfuscate it), results in acting according to Dao and not with the limited mind. So it is called "virtue"...but the virtue is because it is how the Dao flows...without obstruction by the limited being... Edited January 30, 2017 by dwai 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johndoe2012 Posted January 30, 2017 It is not some contrived moral value. It is primordial...a gateway to the Dao. So when it is translated to be "virtue" in a sense it is correct, but not exactly. This is what our system of daoist nei Gong/Dao gong (via temple style tai chi) teaches. Accessing the Te (purifying/removing things that obfuscate it), results in acting according to Dao and not with the limited mind. So it is called "virtue"...but the virtue is because it is how the Dao flows...without obstruction by the limited being... I agree... And I don't practice Temple Style Tai Chi. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rishi Das Posted January 30, 2017 Was Siddhartha from the book by Hermann Hesse the first Buddha? Great book! Read it multiple times. Love the Ferryman! The book however talks about Siddhartha meeting Gautama Buddha - so wouldn't be the first... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pilgrim Posted January 30, 2017 Great book! Read it multiple times. Love the Ferryman! The book however talks about Siddhartha meeting Gautama Buddha - so wouldn't be the first... Darn you are right, it has been so many years I forgot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted January 30, 2017 It's a case of incomplete knowledge, and that's just my personal view. I don't like to get into these because it becomes a "he said, she said". my experiences have been almost systematically matching what Advaita Vedanta describes. And my personal understanding of both Buddhist as well as daoist teaching also leads to the same conclusion. I have a Shia Muslim friend who does taiji with us and reads the same Dao de jing and claims it is nothing but Islam, pure and simple. We have agreed to disagree I'm going to refrain from posting on this subject as it is a landmine for taking positions. I'd much rather practice I totally agree about the "landmine" issue and I greatly appreciate you taking this road of discussion with me. It has been impressively:) Again, I in no way was attempting to say that any tradition was right or wrong. Just trying to point out the logical differences of perspective between them. Showing the more "unique" components of view that they each have in their frameworks. But, ultimately I would say that the discussion can simplify down to one simple point... Does Self = Emptiness (or Tao)? If you do, then it is all pretty much the same. If you do not, there are major differences and ultimate "outcomes" of the traditions. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted January 30, 2017 I totally agree about the "landmine" issue and I greatly appreciate you taking this road of discussion with me. It has been impressively:) Again, I in no way was attempting to say that any tradition was right or wrong. Just trying to point out the logical differences of perspective between them. Showing the more "unique" components of view that they each have in their frameworks. But, ultimately I would say that the discussion can simplify down to one simple point... Does Self = Emptiness (or Tao)? If you do, then it is all pretty much the same. If you do not, there are major differences and ultimate "outcomes" of the traditions. I think those who are participating on this thread are mature enough to recognize the landmines and avoid them...and so I express my respect for them It is not a question of interpretation. Self (Brahman) is Emptiness/Dao. Because it is "empty" and yet full of potentiality. It can be realized logically even...without even going down the experiential path. In order to do that, the question to be answered is - Is existence predicated on matter or consciousness. In metaphysics and theoretical mathematics, there is the concept of Qualia....fundamental units of subjective experience, which exist as information (somehow), and therefore with the creation of everything from nothing (Big Bang), are governing the creation itself. Download PDF Opens in a new window. Article suggestions will be shown in a dialog on return to ScienceDirect. And then this brief discussion between Chopra and Hameroff is very revelatory -- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) I think those who are participating on this thread are mature enough to recognize the landmines and avoid them...and so I express my respect for them It is not a question of interpretation. Self (Brahman) is Emptiness/Dao. Because it is "empty" and yet full of potentiality. It can be realized logically even...without even going down the experiential path. ... And, in that simple statement, you have shown your lack of realization/knowing as repeatedly stated in both Buddhism and Daoism. The Dao and Emptiness are beyond the mind and incapable of being "realized logically even". It is endlessly stated in sutra, but I will leave you with these simple words of the TTC - chapter 1... The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things. ... As the TTC simply states, you are not describing the Dao, instead, what you call the Self, is in Daoism the "mother of 10,000 things". Or, some may call it the "one" which emerges from the Dao. Edited January 30, 2017 by Jeff 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) So all Buddhists and Taoists are just mistaken/confused regarding their understandings/realizations?I think this is not restricted to Buddhists and Taoists, personally. Those who regain complete understanding cannot possibly convey, accurately and completely, that understanding to those who haven't regained it. The world's religions and philosophies are necessarily like blind men describing an elephant -- highly egoistic and cock-sure blind men, at that. Edited January 30, 2017 by Brian 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) And, in that simple statement, you have shown your lack of realization/knowing as repeatedly stated in both Buddhism and Daoism. The Dao and Emptiness are beyond the mind and incapable of being "realized logically even". It is endlessly stated in sutra, but I will leave you with these simple words of the TTC - chapter 1... The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things. ... As the TTC simply states, you are not describing the Dao, instead, what you call the Self, is in Daoism the "mother of 10,000 things". Or, some may call it the "one" which emerges from the Dao. Brahman is also described in the same way. Brahman is silence. Silence is true knowledge. Brahman is also called "Triguna rahitAm" (free of the three gunas or properties of Rajas, tamas and Sattva). Brahman is also called "dvandvateetam" (beyond duality, so it cannot be given a label or observed as form - hence, empty of phenomenal nature). Brahman is also called "nirvikalpa, nirAkAra" (cannot be imagined and does not have any form) I can go on... The "One" is the "I AM" or "Aham" of Advaita Vedanta. It is not the Atman...it is the gateway between Atman/Brahman and the 10,000 things. Edited January 30, 2017 by dwai 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonesboy Posted January 30, 2017 Brahman is also described in the same way. Brahman is silence. Silence is true knowledge. Brahman is also called "Triguna rahitAm" (free of the three gunas or properties of Rajas, tamas and Sattva). Brahman is also called "dvandvateetam" (beyond duality, so it cannot be given a label or observed as form - hence, empty of phenomenal nature). Brahman is also called "nirvikalpa, nirAkAra" (cannot be imagined and does not have any form) I can go on... The "One" is the "I AM" or "Aham" of Advaita Vedanta. It is not the Atman...it is the gateway between Atman/Brahman and the 10,000 things. Hi dwai, It sounds more like you are describing emptiness of self. Silence being an aspect of the void but often associated with to much energy and not the middle way. One does think to talk or to write a post such as this. You also mentioned nirvikalpa samadhi but isn't that which is experienced during meditation? Sahaja samadhi would be more like Rigpa where one can have thoughts or no thoughts they are like the ocean waves and flow through without attachment. Yet emptiness of self is not just of the mind. It is a realization that you are not this form, that not only is your thoughts and feelings energy but your body as well. It is this realization where one has realized oneness and within KS one would be considered a liberated master with the ability for instance of inserting knowledge into others. Even still at this point one is still not one with Siva nor have they realized that all things are self arising aka the realization of Ultimate Emptiness a Buddha, Christ or an Immortal. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwai Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Hi dwai, It sounds more like you are describing emptiness of self. Silence being an aspect of the void but often associated with to much energy and not the middle way. One does think to talk or to write a post such as this. You also mentioned nirvikalpa samadhi but isn't that which is experienced during meditation? Sahaja samadhi would be more like Rigpa where one can have thoughts or no thoughts they are like the ocean waves and flow through without attachment. Yet emptiness of self is not just of the mind. It is a realization that you are not this form, that not only is your thoughts and feelings energy but your body as well. It is this realization where one has realized oneness and within KS one would be considered a liberated master with the ability for instance of inserting knowledge into others. Even still at this point one is still not one with Siva nor have they realized that all things are self arising aka the realization of Ultimate Emptiness a Buddha, Christ or an Immortal. Hi, Nirvikalpa doesn't mean nirvikalpa samadhi. Nirvikalpa the word is a compound word made up of "Nih" and "Vikalpa". Vikalpa means to make a mental resolution/thought. Nih is the negation of that. So Nirvikalpa is one that cannot be "thought" (mental processes applied towards). I used to ask people who objected to my presenting The Self as Emptiness. If you have a zero and I have a zero, is your zero somehow more zero than mine (or vice versa)? Zero is absolute Edited January 31, 2017 by dwai Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonesboy Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Edited January 31, 2017 by Jonesboy 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
