Why Taoism is different

[exorcist_1699]

I think the key is how to initiate pre-heavenly qi so that we can touch Tao with more intimate personal feeling ,in that case , a lot of theoretical issues can be settled . Most people think that Pure intuition is the way , yet unfortunately if it is said to be pure , then it is difficult to be classified into steps . If you try to , it loses its power of purity, therefore lose its momentum to attain the goal . So, we face some kind of dilemma . More theorization in order to explain the issue clearer inversely push us away from our goal . Zen's Koan are some kinds of strange attempts trying to explain the unexplainable .

 

Besides, from Taoist point of view , most of us are situated in a degenerated post-heavenly status ; no matter how hard we purify this mind , our effort most likely turn out to be some kind of mindless stagnation instead of creation . And,as long as the gate is not open , there is no genuine microcosmic circulation , therefore the outcome of jing / red dragon being refined into qi unsecured , so eternal life unlikely .

Edited September 30, 2009 by exorcist_1699

[Marblehead]

Sounds like dependent origination, as in Chi originates dependently and does not have a unique and ultimate self, in and of itself.

 

You are right V. but you know I will always speak to the subject from a Taoist point of view.

 

In other words, 'dependent origination' is not a Taoist concept so there you go.

 

Tzu-jan rules!!!!!

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

Zen's Koan are some kinds of strange attempts trying to explain the unexplainable .

 

 

 

 

Are they? I thought they were techniques to make the intellect realize it can't explain everything.

[Tiller of the Soil]

Quite monist of ya.

 

Ooops, I meant to say how modest of ya.

 

Vajrahridaya your concept/lable MONIST cannot embody that which i am or am not. Mental MASTURBATION Ejaculates the TEN THOUSAND THINGS but not Mindullness of TAO NOW NOW NOW

[Marblehead]

Are they? I thought they were techniques to make the intellect realize it can't explain everything.

 

Y'all let me know if you ever figure that out. Some of the Zen stuff I have seen has went waaay over my head.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya your concept/lable MONIST cannot embody that which i am or am not. Mental MASTURBATION Ejaculates the TEN THOUSAND THINGS but not Mindullness of TAO NOW NOW NOW

 

It's the conceptual position of the inward interpretation of experience deemed as "oneness."

 

So yes, your words revolve around the comprehension of a monist view.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

It's the conceptual position of the inward interpretation of experience deemed as "oneness."

 

So yes, your words revolve around the comprehension of a monist view.

 

Well, you ain't gonna' 'oneness' me you toothless old man.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Well, you ain't gonna' 'oneness' me you toothless old man.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Oh my God!! Marble just looked into my future and saw that I'd be toothless!! Wow...

[Marblehead]

Oh my God!! Marble just looked into my future and saw that I'd be toothless!! Wow...

 

Not to worry. I'm toothless and the ladies rather like it, I must say.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Not to worry. I'm toothless and the ladies rather like it, I must say.

 

Happy Trails!

 

So is my Dad, he lost his from a hockey puck! He used to scare me by removing his fakes when I was a little boy. Now he has permanents.

[Marblehead]

[Stigweard]

[Easy]

This is so goddamned funny--

 

I just signed up yesterday morning and tonight I get a email from some guy named...wait...I have to go back to my email page...Sean, his name is Sean. I suppose y'all know him, and he wants me to tell him my perspective on why Taoism is Different and he encourages me to click on a link that will put me in a favorable position to do so...

 

Like I wrote...so goddamned funny...

 

And I have to imagine that Sean wants me to get really earnest and deep--as if I didn't know this was just standard boilerplate hoop-la that was programed as a send-out to all newbies.

 

So, here goes: Taoism is different because it is not spelled C*H*R*I*S*T*A*N*I*T*Y or S*C*I*E*N*T*O*L*O*G*Y.

 

Sean, you'd better watch where your programed emails are headed.

 

What would Zhong Li Quan do?

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited October 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Sounds like bewilderment in a blissful Jhana that inspires expression.

 

Something I spent years bewildered by. It's an experiential excuse for ignorance that is experienced as a singularity of focus and absorption.

 

Not complete liberation from Samsara by Buddhist standards.

 

Hehehe. Okay V. When you are talking about Taoism you have to use Taoist terms. I don't understand "Jhana" or "Samsara" so I'm really not able to give your response the consideration it deserves.

 

Anyhow ...

 

But we have to consider the context of the conversation. The Sage was speaking to a novice. The passage made it sound simple. Yes, it is simple, but achieving each 'level' is rather difficult for a novice.

 

The "new-born calf" state can be misleading as, like you pointed out, can be mistaken for bewilderment. It is not that at all. When in the state of 'wu', external appearance seems "Duh-like" but in reality there is total awareness of externals while being totally unattached from all externals.

 

In the state of 'wu' there is no focus - there is no absorption - there is no singularity - only emptiness but yet full awareness. (Darn! So hard to express with words.)

 

How about this? There is absolute nothingness (emptiness) but total awareness. This is where one can find (well, not find but awareness of) the Buddhist 'dependent origination'.

 

Happy Trails!

[Stigweard]

It's not the words themselves but the experiential meaning that leads one to the non-conceptual experience of infinite regress and dependent origination. There are infinite way's to elaborate this through diction because there are infinite finites and not just one language.

 

So correct me if I am wrong but you would say that "infinite regress and dependent origination" is the ultimate explanation of reality ... yes?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

In the state of 'wu' there is no focus - there is no absorption - there is no singularity - only emptiness but yet full awareness. (Darn! So hard to express with words.)

 

Happy Trails!

 

Well, emptiness in Buddhism is not a vast nothingness, it's merely the recognition of the mutual co-production of all phenomena and perceptions, even non-conceptual perceptions or states of consciousness transcending subject and object is not an ultimate mind or anything as such in Buddhism.

 

But, the way you worded it does sound more akin to the state of revealing freedom from proliferation. But yes... words are very tricky.

 

A Vajrayana master of Tibet said that you can indeed explain enlightenment through words, but it would just be very hard and nuanced. Thus the endless volumes of Buddhist explanation.

 

So correct me if I am wrong but you would say that "infinite regress and dependent origination" is the ultimate explanation of reality ... yes?

 

Definitely.

 

As the Buddha said, "Dependent Origination is the Dharma, if you see Dependent Origination, you see the Dharma."

 

See what it says is that, we don't start with an assumption that there is a self existing, void of explanation fullness that precedes anything. Dependent Origination takes no assumptive starting point and actually places no construct or non-construct as any ultimate Truth that shines from it's own side.

 

The explanation that you quoted from the Tao De Ching, no matter how beyond words that explanation is pointing to, it's still placing an indefinable self existent non-conceptual as an ultimate Truth that outshines all explanation, and also shines from it's own side that is in fact the shining of all that is shown.

 

Dependent Origination subverts this experiential assumption and say's even this high up formless level of perception and experience beyond words and seeming dualities originates dependently.

 

Dependent Origination subverts all assumptions. If understood correctly and is applied to all levels of experience intuitively.

[Stigweard]

.

Definitely.

 

As the Buddha said, "Dependent Origination is the Dharma, if you see Dependent Origination, you see the Dharma."

 

See what it says is that, we don't start with an assumption that there is a self existing, void of explanation fullness that precedes anything. Dependent Origination takes no assumptive starting point and actually places no construct or non-construct as any ultimate Truth that shines from it's own side.

 

The explanation that you quoted from the Tao De Ching, no matter how beyond words that explanation is pointing to, it's still placing an indefinable self existent non-conceptual as an ultimate Truth that outshines all explanation, and also shines from it's own side that is in fact the shining of all that is shown.

 

Dependent Origination subverts this experiential assumption and say's even this high up formless level of perception and experience beyond words and seeming dualities originates dependently.

 

Dependent Origination subverts all assumptions. If understood correctly and is applied to all levels of experience intuitively.

Then you are, by your own definition and the orthodox definition, officially reifying "infinite regress and dependent origination," and thus you are in violation of your own Budddhist principles.

 

[Marblehead]

Then you are, by your own definition and the orthodox definition, officially reifying "infinite regress and dependent origination," and thus you are in violation of you own Budddhist principles.

 

 

I'm gonna' stay out of this one. Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

[Fruitzilla]

Then you are, by your own definition and the orthodox definition, officially reifying "infinite regress and dependent origination," and thus you are in violation of you own Budddhist principles.

 

 

 

Aaaaah, you caught him.

 

From the Pali Cannon, "The Longer Discourse on The Distruction of Craving" :

 

"Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, as it really is, with right wisdom, this is arising?." "Yes,venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, with right wisdom, that this arises supported?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, with right wisdom, that when the support ceases the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."

 

"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."

 

 

This makes it pretty clear that dependent arising/origination is a teaching tool, not an ontological statement of any sorts.

[Vajrahridaya]

Then you are, by your own definition and the orthodox definition, officially reifying "infinite regress and dependent origination," and thus you are in violation of your own Budddhist principles.

 

 

Nope, it's not possible to reify dependent origination if it's understood properly.

 

It is revealing that it does not inherently exist and that there is no source to existence.

 

 

 

 

 

Aaaaah, you caught him.

 

Stig is just showing his misunderstanding of dependent co-arising. That is all.

 

From the Pali Cannon, "The Longer Discourse on The Distruction of Craving" :

This makes it pretty clear that dependent arising/origination is a teaching tool, not an ontological statement of any sorts.

 

It is an ontological statement saying that nothing inherently exists. So, it is the "right view" in the first of the 8 fold noble path. The Buddha was saying what he said to beings who had studied this view in depth and he was basically saying the the explanation of the view is not the same as the inward intuitive liberation that originates dependent upon seeing through reality with the use of this view. It is in fact the viewless view. But by the definition of ontology, it is an ontological statement and is the crux of the entire Canon of the Dharma from the first turning to the fourth turning. It is most definitely an ontological statement because it is most definitely how the entire cosmos works as well as how an individual works and how one manifests oneself as well as one's interpretation of experiencing. But, because it is also saying that nothing in the universe inherently exists, even the universe as a whole does not inherently exist, so also "how" the entire universe works does not inherently exist as well. So, ontology does not inherently exist and nothing stated, or experienced should be grasped at as "absolute truth" in and of itself, only relatively as an expedient means.

 

So, dependent origination does not inherently exist and is not a "Self" of the universe, it is merely the explanation of the relativity of the flow.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Nope, it's not possible to reify dependent origination if it's understood properly.

 

It is revealing that it does not inherently exist and that there is no source to existence.

 

Stig is just showing his misunderstanding of dependent co-arising. That is all.

 

Regardless of your cries of, "You don't understand," the simple objective facts are that, by declaring that "infinite regress and dependent origination" is the ultimate explanation of reality, you are, by the true definition, literally reifying dependent origination.

 

You are taking the abstract concept "dependent origination" and making it real by saying that it is reality, that all things arise and are existent because of "dependent origination."

 

And then, to extend my mirth, you are implying that if I took the time to understand dependent origination on its own terms then I would know that you are not reifying it.

 

Isn't this exactly what we have been trying to say to you about your slanderous accusations of Taoists reifying Tao ???

 

So now I have a choice before me. I could, as you have done, pounce on every instance in every post of you mentioning dependent origination and make a song and dance about how you are reifying dependent origination including not-so-subtle inferences of how Taoism is better. Or I could respectfully hold my tongue and take the time to learn more about your point of view and explore, through sincere dialogue, how we can enhance each others paths.

 

How would you like me to proceed?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

And then, to extend my mirth, you are implying that if I took the time to understand dependent origination on its own terms then I would know that you are not reifying it.

 

 

Yes... you would.

 

Isn't this exactly what we have been trying to say to you about your slanderous accusations of Taoists reifying Tao ???

 

No because the Tao according to the Tao De Ching is an ontological essence that is beyond concept, yet whole and complete since before time, and exists from it's own side and is the source of the existence of all 10,000 things. So... we are talking about two entirely different interpretations of how the cosmos works.

 

They are not equal in meaning at all.

 

So now I have a choice before me. I could, as you have done, pounce on every instance in every post of you mentioning dependent origination and make a song and dance about how you are reifying dependent origination including not-so-subtle inferences of how Taoism is better. Or I could respectfully hold my tongue and take the time to learn more about your point of view and explore, through sincere dialogue, how we can enhance each others paths.

 

How would you like me to proceed?

 

You can do what you wish... as you wish to benefit yourself. I feel that you should study more Buddhism. I have studied at length much of Taoism in this lifetime. I like Taoism, but mostly the practices and the applied skills, not necessarily the interpretation of the experience on the most subtle level. I find that Tao is still describing an ontological essence of some type that is "beyond concept" so is "beyond being and non-being", and is, "neither perception nor non-perception"... much like how Brahman is explained in Vedanta and the Upanishads. So, I can't in all good reason agree with the Taoist final conclusions. But... seeing dependent origination, I can integrate that view with absolutely every thing, except wrong conclusions about how things work and how things originate.

 

I'm just being honest...

[Seth Ananda]

Taoism is different for me because it is better than Buddhism.

 

 

Or maybe because it doesnt has as many annoying prolifically writing mental masturbators like Vajrahridaya.

 

Sorry just having a whinge. I dont come here much lately, and it seems that when I do half the threads have been hijacked by a preaching buddhist fundamentalist. If I wanted that I would go to church.

 

Its worse that he talks like he 'Knows' or that somehow the arguments are over once he has spoken. If he Knows he must be enlightened. As he has said he attained the Tao and moved beyond it, but when I look at his picture of himself, he just looks like a sweet, but unintergrated intellectual .

 

Dont worry, Ill get over it shortly.

[Stigweard]

No because the Tao according to the Tao De Ching is an ontological essence that is beyond concept, yet whole and complete since before time, and exists from it's own side and is the source of the existence of all 10,000 things. So... we are talking about two entirely different interpretations of how the cosmos works.

 

They are not equal in meaning at all.

This is your misinterpretation what is being illuminated in the Daodejing and you are misinterpreting it this way because it suits your attachment to your Buddhist ontology. To even say that "Tao exists from it's own side" is a blatant demonstration of your misunderstanding and leaves me convinced that you do not take the time to try and comprehend the responses of the people, including myself, who have tried to engage you in sincere dialogue.

 

You have said that I need to take the time to understand dependent origination on its own terms and yet you are demonstrating your unwillingness to understand Tao in the same light.

 

I am not trying to make Tao and dependent origination "equal in meaning". My point, once again, is that in declaring your concept of dependent origination as being the fundamental cause of reality you are making dependent origination "real" and thereby, once again by the conventional definition, reifying it.

You can do what you wish... as you wish to benefit yourself. I feel that you should study more Buddhism. I have studied at length much of Taoism in this lifetime.

You may have read some books which you have interpreted for your own use, but you have not lived it and therefore do not know it. By your superficial and obviously fallacious understanding of Taoism you are disqualified from comparing it to anything else. Talk of Buddhism all you want, but please, if you wish to find harmony amongst those of us here that do make it our life, do not make hierarchical comparisons of Taoism.