Beyond enlightenment

[[email protected]]

My current understanding is that enlightenment is not the cornerstone of Taoism, but the elixir. Of course you are not able to achieve realization without successful xing practice which can be considered as analogue to enlightenment, but only approximately. So in this case enlightenment is only one part of practice, from the other side you need to do something with your body.

Rgrds, Ilya

Edited February 1, 2017 by [email protected]

[Marblehead]

Yep, body and mind.  Keep both functioning well.

[DSCB57]

I would like to thank you all for the wisdom contained in the content of your replies. It has given me much to consider - mull over, ponder over. My wife is unwell so I am unable to reply to each post as I have been in other threads, but I will put your efforts to good use, and I will keep watching these threads for more treasures. 

[DSCB57]

...except The Buddha, one truly exceptional being for only one specific point in 'time.'

 

 

The rest who make such a claim are either deluded or worse: fake.

 

 

I am inclined to agree up to a point. The general consensus is that at this time there are probably no more than 100 awakened people in the world. Of those I imagine there are very few who feel the need to advertise the fact either online or anywhere else. After all, the ego is one of the first things to go The Daodejing also warns against those who take on lofty titles, and there is a definite lack of humility among those who proclaim themselves to be this or that. 

 

However, the fact that there are and have been those who have awakened to their True Nature by following the Buddha Dharma is the proof that Gautama Buddha's method delivers what he promised it would. 

One important thing to take on board is the fact that not every Buddha teaches Dharma. A PratyekaBuddha for example can certainly help others on their journey towards enlightenment but does not actually teach as such. There is no hard and fast rule that says one has to strive toward the goal of becoming a fully realised Buddha who desires only the liberation of all beings and is committed to work ceaselessly to teach the Buddha Dharma. 

 

Another thing of which I am mindful is that anyone or anything might be a Buddha. In the Sutras Gautama says that a Buddha is able to manifest in whichever form or state of being he finds necessary in any of the realms of existence in order to disseminate the Buddha Dharma of that age. Not only that, but he also states that the Dharma can also appear within any tradition, religion or philosophy - according to the level of attainment and need of the individual he desires to bring to the Dharma. One example explains why the different vehicles of Buddha Dharma exist, and why the Mahayana school is nevertheless the supreme teaching. So it is very likely that the Buddha Dharma could manifest through Taoist Dharma or Vedanta or Sanatana Dharma or whatever, without contradiction. That said I draw the line at the Abrahamic religions, because they simply lack all credibility as far as I am concerned, as they seem bereft of an true Dharma in their doctrine.

 

This also creates a sort of chicken and egg dichotomy, because if we are to take on board what Gautama claims, he pre-existed every manifestation of Dharma in his previous manifestations as a Buddha. So it is quite possible that even the sages of the most ancient Taoist traditions are no more than previous manifestations of Buddha themselves. This is pure conjecture on my part, but it does seem plausible to me, especially having studied the Lotus Sutra, and it would also explain the similarities that exist between Taoist philosophy and Buddha Dharma. Does this resonate with anyone else?

[damdao]

(...)

 

This also creates a sort of chicken and egg dichotomy, because if we are to take on board what Gautama claims, he pre-existed every manifestation of Dharma in his previous manifestations as a Buddha. So it is quite possible that even the sages of the most ancient Taoist traditions are no more than previous manifestations of Buddha themselves. This is pure conjecture on my part, but it does seem plausible to me, especially having studied the Lotus Sutra, and it would also explain the similarities that exist between Taoist philosophy and Buddha Dharma. Does this resonate with anyone else?

 

Well...

All religions has its founder as the first spiritual being in the creation. This is the ancient neoplatonic teaching about the logos. So, if you are a christian Jesus is the first created through whom all creation can manifest and attain its perfection, if you are muslim the equivalent is the haqiqat al muhammadiyah, if you are buddhist it is buddha or a dhyani buddha and if you are daoist is the divinization version of Lao Zi.

Believing that only one of them actually is the first being is sectarian. 

It is like a universal teching present in nearly every mystic path.