Why Taoism is different

[ralis]

 

We as Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and not a mysterious, unexplainable essence of all things.

 

The Buddha said, "If there was an essence to the universe to take refuge in, I would have taught this, but since there is not, I do not teach this."

The idea of "We are all one" does not equate with crystal consciousness to a Buddhist.

 

 

It seems to me that your still clinging to some divine will of all Sereneblue.

 

Is the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha any less of an unexplainable mysterious essence than some unexplainable essence of all things? Does not the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha fall into the all things category?

 

Do you read what you write to see if it makes sense?

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Furthermore: I don't believe Taoists see Tao as equivalent to any of the Divine Will Wrong View stages you claim they have.

 

It is considered the origin of the 10,000 things. So, I mean mysterious starter of all things as will here. Not as a person, but as a mysterious source of all things that cannot be explained.

 

Is the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha any less of an unexplainable mysterious essence than some unexplainable essence of all things? Does not the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha fall into the all things category?

 

Do you read what you write to see if it makes sense?

ralis

 

Yes, I do... do you?

 

It is not all things and it is not a mysterious essence. The Buddha is merely our human potential and this is what we take refuge in, our highest potential as Buddhists is Buddhahood.

 

The Dharma is the teachings of the Buddha and all Buddhas. The Sangha are just practitioners of Buddhadharma.

 

You see odd things in my posts that don't even exist outside of your projection ralis. It's as if you really don't want to understand the things I've said and really try your hardest not to.

[JustARandomPanda]

Check out the links above and maybe buy the book.

 

I will! Thank you!

 

I am going to do my best to find out if you are right - meditation, texts and all (I'm going to study Taoism too).

 

Yeah..that includes trying to see if I had a past life as a stork too!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Yeah..that includes trying to see if I had a past life as a stork too!

 

Ugh, sometimes I wince at how much I've revealed of my personal meditative experiences. I sometimes come on after having a few beers. Maybe not a good idea and I get too candid.

 

I appreciate your sincere longing to know the nature of existence Sereneblue. I know sometimes I can just be really blatant and to the point which may seem insensitive... sorry.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

 

It is considered the origin of the 10,000 things. So, I mean mysterious starter of all things as will here. Not as a person, but as a mysterious source of all things that cannot be explained.

 

Now at last I understand. The squabble is over one little word - STARTER. A formless, unchanging background from which everything emanates. Yes...I can see now why a Buddhist would see this as equivalent to God. God, Will, Formless Background that all things emanate around or out of. It's not only an Ever-Fluxing in and of itself. Ever-Fluxing arises out of Tao for Taoists. Buddhists say Ever-Fluxing (Dependent Arising) is all there is (Occam's Razor - no need to impute anything more).

 

Perhaps a closer equivalent would be if Taoism had said Yin/Yang WAS Tao? Instead of trying to separate it out from the 'unknowable Tao'?

 

Hmm....

 

I agree. These interpretations are incompatible.

 

But VH...you are aware of how you come across. I know you do. You just seemingly admitted this in your latest post. I know you to be far kinder than perhaps some TaoBummers perceive you to be. If you are trying to get people to 'go find out' for themselves surely you also see how you are perceived as being combative and disrespectful to Taoism and Taoists.

 

I actually believe you when you say you've dissolved your "hot buttons". So you just toss stuff out there because it's about the message - let the chips fall where they may. But don't you remember what it was like when you still had them? The hot buttons I mean?

 

Being perceived as disrespectful and combative drives people away from learning about what Buddhism has to say. It means the ONLY people who will bother to learn about Buddhism will be the tiny handful who have either A) decided to look past their reaction (Marblehead-or-Mal style) or B ) the exceedingly tiny handful of people who don't have that "hot button" anymore.

 

It's exactly the same reaction that drove a lot of people into Agnosticism or Atheism. Intellectually we may know we shouldn't necessarily toss the baby out with the bathwater. But if people were truly logical neither Buddhism nor Taoism would be needed. We'd all be wu wei.

 

Is there truly no other way you can get your messages across?

[Stigweard]

What are you talking about Stig?

It would appear you will never know because it is apparent that you can't see beyond your own dogma to effectively hear or know what I am saying. You have demonstrated through your obtuseness that you are willing draw you own conclusions of what is being said, regardless of what is being said, to suit your own fixations on what you think is right.

 

It is like you are saying, "You guys are wearing green shirts," to which we say, "No they are actually blue," to which you return, "See I told you that you are wearing green shirts."

 

It is impossible to enter dialogue with someone whose "logic" works that way.

These teachings are pointing to one beyond concept source of existence that is one with all things. It is not illuminating infinite regress of infinite finites and is not illuminating mutual co-arising as is revealed in Buddhism. Taoism according to the Tao De Ching is a monist path.

Yes and what of it? So what if Taoism is a monist path? So what if we see the eternal Dao as the subtle Universal Essence?

 

Just because Buddhism has within its dogma that it rejects Monism does that mean you or it is right or in someway better? No it certainly doesn't!

 

I LOVE DAO BEING THE SUBTLE UNIVERSAL ESSENCE !!!

 

I love the fact that in embracing the intrinsic mystery of life that I don't have to become caught within the attachments and confines of description and rationalization like you are. I love the fact that my awareness is free from the constraints of having to be "right". I love the fact that I am able to let go of the ultimate folly of conceptualization and experience my reality directly and universally. I love the fact that the spectrum of my true nature extends in oneness with the universal essence and that I am every day growing more and more in communion with wholeness of my integral self.

 

Excuse me for paraphrasing my illustrious Prime Minister, but to me here is how I am currently feeling about you Vajrahridaya:

 

Most of the people on this forum are in one way or another Taoist in orientation. If you find Taoist precepts disagreeable, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because Tao is part of our culture.

 

We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

 

This is our forum and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy it. But once you are done criticizing and demeaning our beliefs, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great TaoBum freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.

 

If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the forum YOU accepted.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Is there truly no other way you can get your messages across?

 

Yes of course, but that means restructuring my tenacious personality which takes time.

 

 

Just because Buddhism has within its dogma that it rejects Monism does that mean you or it is right or in someway better? No it certainly doesn't!

 

I LOVE DAO BEING THE SUBTLE UNIVERSAL ESSENCE !!!

 

 

Good, that's all I was trying to say. Is that Buddhism and Taoism do truly have different conclusions about the universe and what it means to be enlightened or liberated.

 

Thank you for coming to an agreement of fundamental difference, that difference which makes Buddhism different from Taoism not only in clothing but at it's core and philosophically incompatible with each other unless a core element of either/or were to be somehow changed or ignored, which happens plenty.

 

Take care.

 

 

 

If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the forum YOU accepted.

 

I accept the people, but I don't have to accept Lau Tzu's interpretation of, "The Way" as "The Great".

 

Rather I see Tao as just applying to mutual co-origination and not as an ontological essence.

 

Perhaps a closer equivalent would be if Taoism had said Yin/Yang WAS Tao? Instead of trying to separate it out from the 'unknowable Tao'?

Hmm....

 

This is how I interpret the term as just the way of mutual dependency without fundamental essence.

 

Which means that I ignore many key texts of Taoism and accept some of it's mundane wisdom and physical application tools but not it's core philosophical tenets per say. Like I say, I love the I-Ching. But, I am a Buddhist.

[Stigweard]

Good, that's all I was trying to say. Is that Buddhism and Taoism do truly have different conclusions about the universe and what it means to be enlightened or liberated.

 

Thank you for coming to an agreement of fundamental difference, that difference which makes Buddhism different from Taoism not only in clothing but at it's core and philosophically incompatible with each other unless a core element of either/or were to be somehow changed or ignored, which happens plenty.

Sorry V but if that was "all" you have been saying you would not have had the backlash of opposition. If you see Taoism and Buddhism as being fundamentally incompatible (which my experience refutes without question) I will persist in questioning your motivation for maintaining your presence here.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Ugh, sometimes I wince at how much I've revealed of my personal meditative experiences. I sometimes come on after having a few beers. Maybe not a good idea and I get too candid.

 

 

 

 

That's an interesting revelation. No judgement here, but I'm actually surprised someone with your spiritual and meditative attainments still has the desire to indulge in "a few beers" with any frequency and then go online and post in forums. Perhaps a partial explanation of why your postings are so incoherent/inscrutable to others?

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry V but if that was "all" you have been saying you would not have had the backlash of opposition. If you see Taoism and Buddhism as being fundamentally incompatible (which my experience refutes without question) I will persist in questioning your motivation for maintaining your presence here.

 

Oh, I was also saying at times that Buddhist realization is superior. Most of the backlash that I am getting is due to when I first got here. I was specifically invited by a member here to argue for Buddhist superiority and how it is fundamentally different and have since found many things interesting here and for a week talked here and there without argument, and you keep bringing up the argument and I keep showing where you are mistaken and you keep disagreeing with me. The argument really started again when I posted "Why Buddhism is different." You took, "Transcends Monism" as a personal attack. I'm basically saying that it transcends monist interpretations of the Tao. Later I clarified that it transcends specifically Lau Tzu's interpretation of "The Tao" in his assertion of it as the single source of all things. For instance, Marbleheads new post on "Taoist Philosophy: The Tao is greater and smaller than all things" is Monist Eternalism, any which way you cut it. So is incompatible with Dependent Origination.

 

I did not say that they as in Buddhism and Taoism are not superficially incompatible in a certain sense, but on the fundamental tenet of Tao as an ontological essence of all things, Buddhism is fundamentally at odds with that and always has been because that's Eternalism, an extreme view. So one would have to ignore this tenet in order to practice both and focus on one or the other way of viewing. One view is in alignment with the first of the 8 fold noble path which is, "Right View" (dependent origination). The other view posited by many Taoists that Tao is the oneness of all phenomena and is ever existent (Eternalism), is not compatible with the 8 fold noble path.

 

For you to say "without question" diminishes my respect for you as a good questioner. Oh well, you don't live by my opinion anyway... so my opinion shouldn't matter to you.

 

Take care.

 

p.s. This has been edited for clarity a few times since posting it originally.

 

That's an interesting revelation. No judgement here, but I'm actually surprised someone with your spiritual and meditative attainments still has the desire to indulge in "a few beers" with any frequency and then go online and post in forums. Perhaps a partial explanation of why your postings are so incoherent/inscrutable to others?

 

Only to a few of you, especially you and a couple of others, naming ralis as one regular mis-reader as well.

 

That doesn't make you right though.

 

There are others here that can understand the things I've written with clarity. Good thing your subjective view isn't God... good for me at least.

 

Beer is not forbidden in the version of Buddhism I practice, but getting drunk is. So, I try to stay away from that. It only takes one beer to start loosing some of ones personal information security options. Which is why many times alcohol is used as a truth serum.

 

Your inability to understand me says more about you, in my opinion, than it does about me. Especially that mostly... all you ever post are sarcastic statements... ever. Or attack me or at times Michaelz personally. That seems to be the extent of your ability. Quite sad.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

A nice vote for equality SereneBlue Well said!

 

I second that emotion!

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

 

how'ma doin.

 

Mark

 

You're doing fine, IMO. Just don't think that I am going to start some dogmatic practice because of it. Hehehe.

 

Happy Trails!

[Marblehead]

I'm stating how it's different and why Buddhism does not accept Taoist philosophical tenets.

 

I feel I should respond to this. Taoism (philosophical) has no tenets. Therefore there is nothing to accept nor reject.

 

RE: Taoism vs Buddhism. Taoists say they don't know; Buddhists say they have no idea. What's the problem?

 

To the subject of cause and effect. For every effect there is a cause. That is reality regardless of what plane of existence one views 'reality', whatever that is.

 

So, if there is and effect what was the cause? And don't tell me that there was no first cause - that is unacceptable. And it didn't happen by magic or some super or ultra-natural event. There ain't no such thing.

 

Can't we just accept the fact that there was a first cause that will never be understood and move on from there?

 

Happy Trails!

[Stigweard]

Oh, I was also saying at times that Buddhist realization is superior. Most of the backlash that I am getting is due to when I first got here. I was specifically invited by a member here to argue for Buddhist superiority ....

Interesting how you are so selective over the application of your own Buddhist tenets because, as we see here now by your own admission, the argument on this forum was dependently originated by your principle agenda to "argue for Buddhist superiority."

 

You were initially treated with the respect that Taoism engenders and folks attempted to engage you with dialogue, sharing their learnings of Tao. However, I was not at all surprised to see members, which now includes myself, become increasingly less tolerant of your comments as you steamrolled with your campaign of proselytism.

 

I have to admit, through me discovering my limits of tolerance, in this topic I have made critical comments about Buddhism which I am apologetic for because I have immanent respect for Buddhism. Through my close work with the Pure Land Buddhist College here in my home town I have seen the Venerables display great compassion and generosity within my community. I am grateful to have them as examples of Buddhism.

 

I also realize that I have broken my own commitments for Taoist-Buddhist dialogue. As such I will once again renounce and apologize for any insinuations I have made of Taoist superiority. If I ever break this commitment again I would like someone to please step in and slap me around the head and shoulders.

 

[Marblehead]

So in some ways Marblehead's critique of Buddhism in the other thread was wrong. I don't quite agree. The Buddha WAS right in saying Life is Suffering - it obscures from us - even babies and amoebas - that nascent, infinite bliss.

 

And now...I'm sure MB will tear me a new one! And I'm going to enjoy every minute of it.

 

Hi Serene,

 

Well, of course you knew I would have to respond to this. And it's not because I have a need to be right but it is because I have a need to clarify how I view the subject of suffering.

 

You mentioned the baby crying when it is born and suggested that it is because it is suffering. I disagree. It cries because it was forced into a change. People don't like change. The babies environment changed - it cried to express that dislike. But, as soon as a tit was placed in its mouth and it recieved the milk of the mother it loved and accepted the change.

 

The change is what brought on the suffering, not the result of birth. As soon as we become comfortable with the change everything is okay again. And as long as the child is reassured that everything is okay throughout all the other changes it will experience throughout its life it will have no cause to suffer. This leads then to you point of bliss. (Actually, I wouldn't call it bliss but rather acceptance.)

 

So, to the entirity of your post I pretty much agree except to the point of suffering.

 

And it was a very nice supporting post to your initial post.

 

However, this thread is primarily concerned with the subject of why Taoism is different so I will close with another thought.

 

Taoism is different because it teaches acceptance of those things in our life that we are unable to change. And this brings me to an understanding I hold to:

 

I have only two kinds of problems in my life: Problems that I can do something to eliminate the problem and problems that I cannot do anything to correct or change. Those that I can eliminate I take action and those problems no longer exist. Those that I cannot eliminate by any action of my own I consider a change in conditions and I therefore must accept the change for the moment. End result: I have no problems so I have no reason to suffer.

 

Happy Trails!

[Enishi]

Reading these threads got me thinking about the concept of the holographic universe. Essentially, we contain the "image and information of the whole" folded within us. However, the whole itself is not a static thing which shines from it's own side either. It's created by all the 3d objects, and also their more subtle aspects. So both the parts and the whole emanate each other (rather than the whole emanating everything on its own as per Brahman monist interpretations). Dependant origination.

 

However, as per the point Vsaluki brought up, how exactly can one fully explain dependant origination or holographic interconnectedness? How can it be that everything is empty and has no true substance? The impression I am getting here (and more experienced daoists can correct me if I'm wrong) is that daoism aims at neither an absoprtion within the highest jhana, nor even a realization of dependant origination, but rather, a full awareness and acknowledgement of the "Mystery" (Tao) of the cosmos, going beyond all conceptualization.

 

It's also not superior or inferior to other realizations either (that's conceptual thinking) just different.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Enishi

[Marblehead]

 

It's also not superior or inferior to other realizations either (that's conceptual thinking) just different.

 

Lovely example of a good Taoist! (But you don't have to call yourself one if you don't want to. Hehehe)

 

Happy Trails!

[ralis]

 

We as Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and not a mysterious, unexplainable essence of all things.

 

The Buddha said, "If there was an essence to the universe to take refuge in, I would have taught this, but since there is not, I do not teach this."

The idea of "We are all one" does not equate with crystal consciousness to a Buddhist.

 

 

 

Your second statement does not follow from the first! If there is not a universal essence to take refuge in, then there is no essence in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha to take refuge in. The term universe (everything that exists) must include the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.

 

What ever happened to critical thinking?

 

 

ralis

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

p.s. This has been edited for clarity a few times since posting it originally.

Only to a few of you, especially you and a couple of others, naming ralis as one regular mis-reader as well.

 

That doesn't make you right though.

 

There are others here that can understand the things I've written with clarity. Good thing your subjective view isn't God... good for me at least.

 

Beer is not forbidden in the version of Buddhism I practice, but getting drunk is. So, I try to stay away from that. It's good that you "try to stay away from" getting drunk. And if it only takes one beer to start loosing some of ones personal information security options. Which is why many times alcohol is used as a truth serum.

 

Your inability to understand me says more about you, in my opinion, than it does about me. Especially that mostly... all you ever post are sarcastic statements... ever. Or attack me or at times Michaelz personally. That seems to be the extent of your ability. Quite sad.

 

This is not an attack, nor sarcasm. You offered up that you sometimes post after having a few beers. I, and others find that often, though not always, your writings are run-on and unclear. For example, see earlier in this thread, when SereneBlue was able to clarify what you wrote. If you could write it clearly like that, it would have been understood by all. I also find your forum behavior boorish--directly or indirectly touting your brand of Buddhism-- and perhaps the alcohol explains that as well. It's very hard for me to understand what allure alcohol would have when one has realized the heights of meditative experience such as you have.

 

Please search for my postings and read them if you think that all I ever post is sarcasm. You only know me from my responses in the threads you post in. Your inability to understand me says more about you, in my opinion, than it does about me.

 

It's good that you "try to stay away from" getting drunk. And if it only takes one beer to loosen your "personal information security options", then perhaps drinking and forum participation is not such a good idea?

Edited October 3, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Marblehead]

What ever happened to critical thinking?

ralis

 

That always goes out the window when we resort to arguing and comparing.

 

In counting, beginning at zero, two always follows one. It cannot be different.

 

Happy Trails!

[ralis]

This is not an attack, or sarcasm. You offered up that you sometimes post after having a few beers. I, and others find that often, though not always, your writings are run-on and unclear. For example, see earlier in this thread, when SereneBlue was able to clarify what you wrote. If you had written it like that, it would have been clear to all. I also find your forum behavior boorish, and perhaps the alcohol explains that as well.

 

Please search for my postings and read them if you think that all I ever post is sarcasm. You only know me from my responses in the threads you post in. If it only takes one beer to loosen your 'personal security options', then perhaps drinking and forum participation is not such a good idea?

 

Sometimes I think Vajraji attempts to emulate the behavior of certain masters he has read about. These masters are called "crazy wisdom masters". There are grand stories told about tantric masters who can consume copious amounts of alcohol, poison, toxic substances and are able to transform the effects into wisdom. Mythological tales?

 

Is Vajraji attempting to transform incoherent arguments into wisdom?

 

The best examples that I know of and I am certain many here are familiar with, are the problems that were created by Trungpa's successor Thomas Rich. His incoherent ramblings and ego inflation were the cause of much suffering in the Buddhist community. All in the name of "crazy wisdom".

 

Trungpa died from alcohol addiction and Rich died from AIDS.

 

There are a few that will believe in Vajraji and take his arguments to heart and then..........?

 

ralis

 

 

 

 

 

That always goes out the window when we resort to arguing and comparing.

 

In counting, beginning at zero, two always follows one. It cannot be different.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

Great point!

Edited October 3, 2009 by ralis

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

The Buddha said, "If there was an essence to the universe to take refuge in, I would have taught this, but since there is not, I do not teach this."

 

 

So what did the Buddha teach as his practice(the main part, not all the flowery stuff added on later), he taught meditation, and how does one meditate, 'no-mind', void, where do Daoists believe all things come from.....void. Hmmmm. Since 'No-mind' gradually should(in some cases)remove the ego.....which is the cause of the suffering...emotion etc, therefore I believe the refuge that the Buddha taught, was, in fact, meditation...toward....void.

 

'When the universe was first formed, it was a nameless void'

 

No-mind=void=refuge(from the suffering your ego brought about)

 

Very Dao.

[JustARandomPanda]

 

So what did the Buddha teach as his practice(the main part, not all the flowery stuff added on later), he taught meditation, and how does one meditate, 'no-mind', void, where do Daoists believe all things come from.....void. Hmmmm. Since 'No-mind' gradually should(in some cases)remove the ego.....which is the cause of the suffering...emotion etc, therefore I believe the refuge that the Buddha taught, was, in fact, meditation...toward....void.

 

'When the universe was first formed, it was a nameless void'

 

No-mind=void=refuge(from the suffering your ego brought about)

 

Very Dao.

 

Hi Ninpo...interesting post though I don't think this is what the Buddha was talking about - i.e. a void in the sense you're stating. It took me a long time to wrap my head around it but Emptiness / No-mind to a Buddhist meditator means only one thing - Dependent Arising. The type of void you are referring to Buddhists refute over and over.

 

The only reason I was ever finally able to 'get' that idea to sink in is because of the multiple books by the Dalai Lama that I've read wherein he discusses this very subject and the mistaken understandings about it. It is sooooo much easier understanding all this Dependent Arising and no Essence (whether of the Self or of the Universe) stuff when the Dalai Lama talks about it than when VH does. It's also a heck of a lot more interesting too (than when VH discusses it, I mean).

 

Gah...I so hope I don't sound combative or disrespectful.

 

I know I need to tippy-toe on these subjects because everyone's "immune system response" has been stirred up so constantly over the subject.

 

 

Also...since I have not experienced any sort of meditative state other than briefly managing to quell my surface thoughts I would never state Buddhism is superior to 'this or that' other belief system. It's just that this is where my understanding of some Buddhist subjects are at this time.

 

The nice thing - from what I understand - is that both Buddhism and Taoism are based on a type of Empiricism. That is...both state that if you do 'ABC practices' you will get 'XYZ results'. So then it's just a matter of kicking back and doing the practices. We all get to find out for ourselves how compatible or not Taoism and Buddhism are.

 

The Chinese didn't (and don't) seem to have a problem with both (and Confucius too - can't forget about him, you know).

 

But this thread is about Taoism. I know more about Buddhism than about Taoism so I hope it returns now to just discussing various aspects about the Tao. Like this Ten Celestial Branches stuff. I don't recall ever seeing anything like that anywhere else.

[Vajrahridaya]

I feel I should respond to this. Taoism (philosophical) has no tenets. Therefore there is nothing to accept nor reject.

 

Yes you have tenets. What are you talking about? You post Taoist philosophical tenets all the time.

RE: Taoism vs Buddhism. Taoists say they don't know; Buddhists say they have no idea. What's the problem?

 

No, Buddha's do know. There is no mystery about the nature of the dance, just fun in how it spontaneously occurs. A Buddha has omniscience into how things happen.

 

 

So, if there is and effect what was the cause? And don't tell me that there was no first cause - that is unacceptable. And it didn't happen by magic or some super or ultra-natural event. There ain't no such thing.

 

Well, that's where you don't see the meaning of interdependent origination. It posits absolutely no first cause at all. That is what infinite regress means, that there is no primal cause. Just the flow cycling since beginningless time. It's an entirely different way of thinking from all other spiritual traditions that posit a first cause. Buddhism is the only path that does not, which makes it unique.

 

Can't we just accept the fact that there was a first cause that will never be understood and move on from there?

 

Happy Trails!

 

Because that wouldn't be Buddhism. Buddhism explains thoroughly how the universe cycles. I have explained it a few times in previous posts, but most people just go ??? and I try to explain in different ways, and some people get it, but most of them are Buddhist to begin with. Because they have already made the paradigm shift into beginningless regress and have transcended this attachment to a primal cause or universal essence that is "mysterious" and "beyond the human capacity to understand."

Edited October 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

However, as per the point Vsaluki brought up, how exactly can one fully explain dependant origination or holographic interconnectedness? How can it be that everything is empty and has no true substance? The impression I am getting here (and more experienced daoists can correct me if I'm wrong) is that daoism aims at neither an absoprtion within the highest jhana, nor even a realization of dependant origination, but rather, a full awareness and acknowledgement of the "Mystery" (Tao) of the cosmos, going beyond all conceptualization.

 

 

Dependent Origination explains it thoroughly through the different forms of Abhidhamma, to Abhidharma to Abhidharmakosha.

 

One can pick up the Treasury of Knowledge... Starting with Myriad Worlds, or Book One. Even though if you get Abhidharmakosha it will be a more thorough explanation. This is considered THE MOST important of Buddhist explanations of how the Universe works... Abhidharmakoshabhasyam

[ralis]

Vajraji posits the philosophy of dependent arising without knowing what the implications are. Dependent arising is nothing more than a mechanistic and deterministic view of the universe i.e, Newtonian Mechanics. Are his arguments no different than the Greek Atomists? Is karma a mechanistic and deterministic view? Are emotions mechanistic?

 

Are all the added philosophical discourses i.e, Pali suttas etc. influenced by the Greeks?

 

Is Taoism a non mechanical view? Non mystical?

 

ralis