Why Taoism is different

[Walker]

Question, Vajradrihaya: Do you interpret the the taijitu (Tai Chi Diagram) as a process unfolding in linear time?

 

Another question: Why cannot the term "Dao/Tao" be considered loose enough so as to include within its definition the ideas of dependent origination?

[Marblehead]

 

Another question: Why cannot the term "Dao/Tao" be considered loose enough so as to include within its definition the ideas of dependent origination?

 

It does. V. and I even agreed to this point at one time but it seems that the argeement was either misunderstood or ignored by everyone including V. and myself. It just that I use the term 'cause and effect'. And no, I don't know what the original cause was if even there was one.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddhists in china often practice Daoism, the techniques for energy development I mean, and frankly speaking a lot of the principles too. And if there are Buddhists themselves that follow Daoist principles because a great deal of it has merged,

 

 

This does happen, but a Buddhist as a Buddhist cannot accept "The Tao" to mean anything other than the way things mutually co-depend, and not as an ontological essence as Lau Tzu defines it.

 

Buddhism universally is the same and does not believe in a universal essence, or a universal source to all things. Every form of Buddhism believes this. But, what they argue about or disagree in are the stages of the path.

 

Oh, Shentong view holds that the nature of mind is real and shines from it's own side. Is empty of other, but not itself. Which goes against Madhyamika, and the Heart Sutra, not to mention all other forms of Buddhism down the line so is considered at times Heretical. But, not always, because one can see how this view can be used in meditation to focus on the mind without objects, but if this is taken up as a universal essence, then your falling into an extreme view of Eternalism renounced by the Buddha.

 

Other than that... the core view of Taoism as an ontological essence and Buddhist refutation of it since the very beginning of Buddhism is what is being argued here. Not that a Buddhist couldn't do Taoist energy work without loosing his or her "right view" of dependent origination. Because a Buddhist can practice any of the martial arts and energy movements, as long as he or she holds the view of emptiness and dependent origination, then he or she will not fall into the extreme view of this always exists, or this never exists (eternalism/nihilism) which would not be Buddhist.

 

It does. V. and I even agreed to this point at one time but it seems that the argeement was either misunderstood or ignored by everyone including V. and myself. It just that I use the term 'cause and effect'. And no, I don't know what the original cause was if even there was one.

 

Happy Trails!

 

See I and Buddhism agree that Tao can be applied to yin/yang mutual co-dependency, but not as a primal source or essence of all things. Thereby making it a truely self existent source that is not itself caused. Taoists seem to think of the Tao as an uncaused cause beyond thought, logic and reason.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[33865_1494798762]

Edited October 4, 2009 by Guest

[Vajrahridaya]

[Marblehead]

 

It's actually because Stig made some mis-comments about Buddhism here and then I tried to rectify the misunderstanding and it blew up into this. But, all in good fun and clarity... eh?

 

Well, I have to forgive Stig because, afterall, he is a Religious Taoist.

 

Clarity? Where did you see that? I wanna' see it too!!!

 

(Don't you dare tell me to become a Buddhist and all will become clear!)

 

And BTW You need some clarity on this, fella': Yes, a Monist premise, that all things share one essence. So all differences are merely conceptual, but non-conceptually the same. That's mistaking a deep meditative experience as a self/essence.

 

Aren't you tired of riding this same old horse? The poor girl need to be let out to pasture.

 

And yes, you are right: Buddhism is different because it's different.

 

And that is why it is not Taoism. And never can be. But you can try to make it like Taoism if you like.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Aren't you tired of riding this same old horse? The poor girl need to be let out to pasture.

 

 

 

Happy Trails!

 

Yup... Me thinks she got fa hr der a broken leg... thinks we gotta put hr ta sleep.

[Stigweard]

It's actually because Stig made some mis-comments about Buddhism here and then I tried to rectify the misunderstanding and it blew up into this.

Please don't try and shift the responsibility of this argument on to me. By your own words:

 

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 ....

You came here for an argument Vajrahridaya. And you got one.

Well, I have to forgive Stig because, afterall, he is a Religious Taoist.

[Marblehead]

So where do we go now, now that we have realized inferior superiority?

 

Maybe we could talk about what the two have in common? I know, it's not as much fun but I suggest that it could be much more productive.

 

Happy Trails!

Edited October 5, 2009 by Marblehead

[Stigweard]

So where do we go now, now that we have realized inferior superiority?

 

Maybe we could talk about what the two have in common? I know, it's not as much fun but I suggest that it could be much more productive.

 

Happy Trails!

*sigh*

 

Yes please! Do you think we can?

[Walker]

Edited October 5, 2009 by Walker

[William Douglas Horden]

My Fellow Wayfarers--

 

I've spent several productive hours reading the some 26 pages of posts to this discussion that seems to have begun well over a year ago and covered a remarkable range of thoughts and, yes, a fair bit of emotion, as well.

 

In what I've read, I haven't come across the main thing that makes Taoism different to me, so I will stick my toe in the shallow end of the pool and mention the difference which, on a day-to-day level of practice, makes the biggest difference to me.

 

Taoism is the only major religion that still holds to the two-soul model of human being.

 

The p'o, the bodily soul, associated with yin.

The hun, the spiritual soul, associated with yang.

 

These collaborate in relative balance within each individual until her/his death, at which time the p'o returns to the earthly sphere and the hun returns to the celestial sphere.

 

Unless, of course, there is some validity to the idea that the two souls can be married during one's lifetime so that they do not separate at death but return together to the celestial sphere.

 

All My Best Thoughts and Wishes,

William

 

[Vajrahridaya]

 

But please, where is Dao necessarily defined as anything other than the formless, ineffable ground in which things seem to happen; where, "it is not an illusion, but like an illusion, gone and changed into another form before you can grasp it"?

 

 

You are mis-reading me. In Buddhism, there is no formless ineffable ground for Buddhists or Dzogchenpas.

 

Kalu Rinpoche is considered a very deep Master. Maybe there are other Taoist lineages that don't follow what Lau Tzu said about the Tao being an ontological essence. But, most here seem to.

 

 

Why cannot the term "Dao/Tao" be considered loose enough so as to include within its definition the ideas of dependent origination?

 

Because Tao in The Tao De Ching is defined as an ontological essence, a non-conceptual ground of being that all being springs from in every moment,

 

That's not dependent origination.

 

Have you ever asked a fully enlightened Buddha about Daoism?

 

Not directly.

[Walker]

You are mis-reading me. In Buddhism, there is no formless ineffable ground for Buddhists or Dzogchenpas.

 

Kalu Rinpoche is considered a very deep Master. Maybe there are other Taoist lineages that don't follow what Lau Tzu said about the Tao being an ontological essence. But, most here seem to.

Because Tao in The Tao De Ching is defined as an ontological essence, a non-conceptual ground of being that all being springs from in every moment,

 

That's not dependent origination.

Not directly.

 

Hmm. Trying to understand your thinking... What do you make of the following statements:

 

-There is no Dao at all, it is a faulty concept.

 

-There is something from which all being appears to spring from in every moment, some call it Dao, but Dao itself is dependently originated. A beginning and endless stream of causes and conditions dancing in emptiness that is even empty of emptiness gave rise to what some call Dao. When the causes and conditions for this Dao cease to exist, the Dao will also cease to exist.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hmm. Trying to understand your thinking... What do you make of the following statements:

 

-There is no Dao at all, it is a faulty concept.

 

-There is something from which all being appears to spring from in every moment, some call it Dao, but Dao itself is dependently originated. A beginning and endless stream of causes and conditions dancing in emptiness that is even empty of emptiness gave rise to what some call Dao. When the causes and conditions for this Dao cease to exist, the Dao will also cease to exist.

 

You cannot reify emptiness as an essence of things, merely as a quality of things like the wetness of water, or the heat of fire, or the coolness of air, the openness of space, or the hardness of earth, as it's not some sort of space that things flow through. Emptiness is the just the quality of impermanence, and thus the wetness of water is empty of inherent existence as well because it's dependent upon there being water and emptiness is empty because it depends on things, and since things are empty, there's not really some great unifying emptiness as a grand thing or non-thing that truly "is."

 

I suggest you study Buddhism on it's own terms, then see if you can integrate it yourself, personally with Taoism.

 

For Buddhists... Tao as an essence is a faulty concept and does not exist. But, Tao as "the way" of the flow of mutual dependency... is merely just saying that things have "a way" of movement and impermanence, but that doesn't mean that Tao exists other than saying... things move "this way".

 

It seems that Taoists say that the Tao applies both as an eternal source of things and as the way things move, so... for a Buddhist, the same argument against Vedanta applies.

[ngtest]

You are mis-reading me. In Buddhism, there is no formless ineffable ground for Buddhists or Dzogchenpas.

 

Just a friendly question to help me understand better:

 

How do you interpret this verse by Mahasattva Fu, I read in Master Nan Huai Chin:

 

"There is a heaven and earth before things, formless fundamentally quiet and still. It can act as the master of the myriad forms. It does not wither along with the four seasons."

 

Isn't this a sort of origin?

 

Master Nan says this verse describes the domain of liberation from the skanda of consciousness, but not analysing it much.

 

I would be happy if Vajrahridaya can clarify things.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

"There is a heaven and earth before things, formless fundamentally quiet and still. It can act as the master of the myriad forms. It does not wither along with the four seasons."

 

 

If he is talking about the aggregate of consciousness, then we know that consciousness is aggregated and not inherently existent. But yes, is formless and if dependent origination is realized, then it does not wither anymore through attachment to it's appearances that arise within it. One is aware of consciousness originating dependently like in the 12 links description. Because awareness is uncompounded through realization and thus is also the master of it's myriad forms it is liberated. Thus, not a source of all, but rather a permanent realization of impermanence and the inter-dependency of all.

 

I don't really understanding, "There is a heaven and earth before things", because for me, heaven and earth are definitely things... or realms of existence defined by the things within them.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[exorcist_1699]

From the standpoint of Taoism , those three basic elements of the Chinese culture : Taoism , Buddhism( includes Tibetan) and Confucian , in fact target at the same goal, it is only their methods are varied ; however, there are always some sectarian , mediocre Buddhists , who so ignorant of the great achievement and abundant legacy people get from the intercourse of these three schools over a history of 2,000 years , think that Buddhism always stands alone , and is more superior .

 

I am not interested in any argument about the ontological aspects of Taoism and Buddhism ,which I think is beyond the reach of our reasoning and language ; What I am interested are their methods , ie, how human beings knew, then explored and manipulated the emptiness before their eyes and really nourished something out of it . Both Taoism and Buddhism find that in emptiness , some medicine that can cure our disease ,aging or even death , is hidden , yet it is only Taoism that links it to qi.

 

So, Taoism differs from Buddhism mainly in its discovery of qi in the cosmos, our body , and its applications in medicine. It also gives us an detailed description of those acupuncture points and channels that qi circulates in ; All , of course, are important for our cultivation . It seems Buddhism gets a similar system , however, at a closer look, we find it far from so precise and detailed as the Taoist one that you can rely on ( for example ,which point , which specific channel that corresponds to what disease, to what herb should be used..etc ) to cure thousands of diseases, including mental illness arise from Buddhist style of meditation.

 

 

Some Buddhists may criticize Taoist framework of jing-qi-shen , but what can they, those mediocre Buddhists , propose?Esoteric Buddhism ,which relies heavily on visualization , chants and mudra ( mystic signs of hands), to some people , can be as trivial and attached , and no better than many mediocre Taoist schools.

 

Practicing the Pure Land 's method requests you having persistent spirit in uttering the name of Buddha

or chanting those scripts in Sutra , so as attain a mindless status , but after that what follow? To many people, it likely degrades into some kind of daily ,unproductive routine .

 

Zen Buddhist method is the most difficult one, yet to some talents , most stimulating . However, to most people ,it likely degenerates into some kind of philosophical gossip , if not bullshit , unrelated to the aim which Buddhism really pursues.

 

I think if people compare them with Taoist jing-qi-shen framework, and study carefully the precedent process of their cultivation , its relation with their life , likely they can make some impartial judgment themselves .

Edited October 5, 2009 by exorcist_1699

[Walker]

You cannot reify emptiness as an essence of things, merely as a quality of things like the wetness of water, or the heat of fire, or the coolness of air, the openness of space, or the hardness of earth, as it's not some sort of space that things flow through. Emptiness is the just the quality of impermanence, and thus the wetness of water is empty of inherent existence as well because it's dependent upon there being water and emptiness is empty because it depends on things, and since things are empty, there's not really some great unifying emptiness as a grand thing or non-thing that truly "is."

 

I suggest you study Buddhism on it's own terms, then see if you can integrate it yourself, personally with Taoism.

 

For Buddhists... Tao as an essence is a faulty concept and does not exist. But, Tao as "the way" of the flow of mutual dependency... is merely just saying that things have "a way" of movement and impermanence, but that doesn't mean that Tao exists other than saying... things move "this way".

 

It seems that Taoists say that the Tao applies both as an eternal source of things and as the way things move, so... for a Buddhist, the same argument against Vedanta applies.

 

Much clarified. Thank you.

 

To your first paragraph: Sounds like the core teaching of the Heart Sutra to me, but please correct me if I am wrong. To the extent that I am capable, I understand. I may not have succeeded in communicating as much, but it is what you speak of there that gives Buddhism so much appeal in my eyes.

 

To your second paragraph, a good suggestion and one I aspire to slowly live up to to the degree that it is appropriate and possible in my life.

 

To the third paragraph, perhaps in a horrible misunderstanding of Daoism, perhaps not, I tend to agree with that statement. It seems like a workable characterization of an idea which naturally defies definition. Reading you write that almost feels like, man, a breath of fresh air in this stuffy-ass debate hall TTB has turned into of late, as I think we might be getting somewhere closer to a mutual understanding, if one is possible. Many have said that Dao is more accurately considered as a process than as a thing, and if you look into the wuxing, the bagua, the yijing, the taiji, etc, it's clear that Daoism really is all about processes. As to whether many, most, or all Daoists of real accomplishment have the type of ontological ideas about the Dao as essence you suggest they do, I am not sure. Maybe my ideas are just an interpretation of Daoism that is overly colored by Buddhism.

 

To the fourth paragraph, yes, it sometimes seems that way, sometimes doesn't. I lack the education and direct experience to say. Daoism is not widely understood even in its homeland, and non-Chinese speakers as a whole really lack deep insight into Daoism due to a dearth of bilingual, widely-accessible teachers and fathomable translated texts. This is especially so relative to what we see when we look into Buddhism. Furthermore, like Excorcist says, there are things that are difficult if not impossible to speak and write about. I think there could be great value in going slowly when things only seem certain ways.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Walker

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

H

 

-There is something from which all being appears to spring from in every moment, some call it Dao, but Dao itself is dependently originated. A beginning and endless stream of causes and conditions dancing in emptiness that is even empty of emptiness gave rise to what some call Dao. When the causes and conditions for this Dao cease to exist, the Dao will also cease to exist.

 

well said.

[Marblehead]

See I and Buddhism agree that Tao can be applied to yin/yang mutual co-dependency, but not as a primal source or essence of all things. Thereby making it a truely self existent source that is not itself caused. Taoists seem to think of the Tao as an uncaused cause beyond thought, logic and reason.

 

Now, I never suggested that Chi (Yin/Yang) was the source of anything. I have said that it is the interaction of Chi with the Mystery that causes the Manifest. That is all I have stated as a firm belief. I cannot observe the mystery from the Manifest so I cannot speak to it. (That's wu wei stuff.)

 

And as Mystery, which I cannot observe directly, is part of the total (actually, the Manifest is a subset of the Mystery) I will never be able to observe the total so how could I ever begin to define what it is if I can observe only a small part of what I assume is the Oneness.

 

If there was a "first cause" I have no way of identifying it or describing it. Therefore I must say "I don't know."

 

Tao is not an identifiable 'thing'. Tao (the noun) is everything and every non-thing. But it remains non-descriptive.

 

The world (Earth) goes 'round its center (the Sun). Our Sun goes 'round its center (the Black Hole that is the center of our galaxy). Our galaxy (the Milky Way) is in motion and it is believed that it is at this time moving away from its center (the Big Bang event). Beyond that all is speculation.

 

Anyone who says anything beyond this is only speculating. There is no way to prove or disprove the speculation.

 

I have never seen a ghost therefore I speculate that there is no such thing as a ghost. Some people say they have proof of the existence of ghosts. I suggest that their 'proof' is false. However, I will not extend this thought to state that 'ghosts do not exist' because then I would only be speculating.

 

So, if one wishes to believe that some god created the universe in six days and on the seventh day rested that is all well and good. But it must be understood that they are only speculating because there is no proof of any such event.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taoism is the only major religion that still holds to the two-soul model of human being.

 

The p'o, the bodily soul, associated with yin.

The hun, the spiritual soul, associated with yang.

 

These collaborate in relative balance within each individual until her/his death, at which time the p'o returns to the earthly sphere and the hun returns to the celestial sphere.

 

 

I just wanted to state that I hold to this understanding. I used different words to describe it but it is tha same concept non-the-less.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Now, I never suggested that Chi (Yin/Yang) was the source of anything. I have said that it is the interaction of Chi with the Mystery that causes the Manifest. That is all I have stated as a firm belief. I cannot observe the mystery from the Manifest so I cannot speak to it. (That's wu wei stuff.)

 

That's an experiential excuse for ignorance.

 

And as Mystery, which I cannot observe directly, is part of the total (actually, the Manifest is a subset of the Mystery) I will never be able to observe the total so how could I ever begin to define what it is if I can observe only a small part of what I assume is the Oneness.

 

That's both an experiential excuse for ignorance and monism.

If there was a "first cause" I have no way of identifying it or describing it. Therefore I must say "I don't know."

Another experiential excuse and an intellectual excuse for ignorance.

 

 

Tao is not an identifiable 'thing'. Tao (the noun) is everything and every non-thing. But it remains non-descriptive.

 

This is a monist view.

 

The world (Earth) goes 'round its center (the Sun). Our Sun goes 'round its center (the Black Hole that is the center of our galaxy). Our galaxy (the Milky Way) is in motion and it is believed that it is at this time moving away from its center (the Big Bang event). Beyond that all is speculation.

 

An experiential excuse for ignorance. Through meditation one can transcend your speculation and actual direct vision.

 

Anyone who says anything beyond this is only speculating. There is no way to prove or disprove the speculation.

 

Not for Buddhas.

 

I have never seen a ghost therefore I speculate that there is no such thing as a ghost. Some people say they have proof of the existence of ghosts. I suggest that their 'proof' is false. However, I will not extend this thought to state that 'ghosts do not exist' because then I would only be speculating.

 

At least your honest with the limits of your experience, but don't limit others by it.

 

 

 

Much clarified. Thank you.

 

To your first paragraph: Sounds like the core teaching of the Heart Sutra to me, but please correct me if I am wrong. To the extent that I am capable, I understand. I may not have succeeded in communicating as much, but it is what you speak of there that gives Buddhism so much appeal in my eyes.

 

To your second paragraph, a good suggestion and one I aspire to slowly live up to to the degree that it is appropriate and possible in my life.

 

To the third paragraph, perhaps in a horrible misunderstanding of Daoism, perhaps not, I tend to agree with that statement. It seems like a workable characterization of an idea which naturally defies definition. Reading you write that almost feels like, man, a breath of fresh air in this stuffy-ass debate hall TTB has turned into of late, as I think we might be getting somewhere closer to a mutual understanding, if one is possible. Many have said that Dao is more accurately considered as a process than as a thing, and if you look into the wuxing, the bagua, the yijing, the taiji, etc, it's clear that Daoism really is all about processes. As to whether many, most, or all Daoists of real accomplishment have the type of ontological ideas about the Dao as essence you suggest they do, I am not sure. Maybe my ideas are just an interpretation of Daoism that is overly colored by Buddhism.

 

To the fourth paragraph, yes, it sometimes seems that way, sometimes doesn't. I lack the education and direct experience to say. Daoism is not widely understood even in its homeland, and non-Chinese speakers as a whole really lack deep insight into Daoism due to a dearth of bilingual, widely-accessible teachers and fathomable translated texts. This is especially so relative to what we see when we look into Buddhism. Furthermore, like Excorcist says, there are things that are difficult if not impossible to speak and write about. I think there could be great value in going slowly when things only seem certain ways.

 

What a thoughtful post... thank you.

 

I have nothing to say, other than what a wonderful state of mind this feels like.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

That's an experiential excuse for ignorance.

That's both an experiential excuse for ignorance and monism.

 

Another experiential excuse and an intellectual excuse for ignorance.

This is a monist view.

An experiential excuse for ignorance. Through meditation one can transcend your speculation and actual direct vision.

Not for Buddhas.

At least your honest with the limits of your experience, but don't limit others by it.

What a thoughtful post... thank you.

 

I have nothing to say, other than what a wonderful state of mind this feels like.

 

WOW! You sure are expressing a lot of ignorance today.

 

And then you go off thinking that you know what cannot be known.

 

To not know you don't know is a flaw. V. you are flawed!

 

Your response was quite disgusting actually.

 

Okay my all-knowing person of superior wisdom - when are you going to be honest and give us just a little hint that you really don't know everything and that you are not the Buddha reincarnated?

 

Most of us know that you throw falsehood out in the field as if they were flowers at a festival.

 

So, all-knowing one, could you tell me when all liquid water either evaporated or froze on Mars? The exact solar year? Surely you were in one of your other lifes back then.

 

Were you ever a midget in one of your lifes? Surely you were a woman!

 

I am truely amazed by people who know everything. One can learn so much from them. I'll bet it was V. who was actually the Buddha in one of his former lifes.

 

So when you were the Buddha why did you piss so many people off that it caused one of them to feed you poisonous mushrooms and kill you?

 

At least Lao Tzu walked off into the desert and probably died of dehydration.

 

So why is Taoism different? There has never been a Taoist who has ever claimed they know everything. And there has never been a Taoist who has claimed that they were superior to any other aspect of Tao.

 

So over in that other thread about Buddhism I suppose it is a given that we will see posts that suggest that Buddhist are all-seeing, all-knowing and ever-lasting (relatively, of course).

 

So you go ahead on and speak your unspeakable and think your unthinkable and play with your prior lifes etc.

 

I just don't buy it and I suggest to all the following warning: Buyer beware!

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

That's an experiential excuse for ignorance.

 

Your ignorance, I'm sure.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

That's both an experiential excuse for ignorance and monism.

 

 

More of your ignorance, I'm sure.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

Another experiential excuse and an intellectual excuse for ignorance.

 

Still more of your ignorance, I'm sure.

 

Happy Trails!

 

 

 

An experiential excuse for ignorance.

 

And yet again, still more of your ignorance, I am sure.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Your response was quite disgusting actually.

 

 

No, you just took it personally.

 

Okay my all-knowing person of superior wisdom - when are you going to be honest and give us just a little hint that you really don't know everything and that you are not the Buddha reincarnated?

 

I'm not the Buddha incarnated, so I'm not omniscient, but I'm on the path and have the signs of direct insight into what you consider mystery.

 

Most of us know that you throw falsehood out in the field as if they were flowers at a festival.

 

Most people on the planet would think that. So, that's nothing special.

 

So, all-knowing one, could you tell me when all liquid water either evaporated or froze on Mars? The exact solar year? Surely you were in one of your other lifes back then.

 

Nope. That's not what omniscience means in Buddhism. Though, if I were a Buddha... I might be able to use yogic powers to ascertain such knowledge. But, that's not what it means to know exactly how things happen. To know the way of things, is not knowing every particular manifestation ever.

 

Were you ever a midget in one of your lifes? Surely you were a woman!

 

Thus far, I can't remember ever being either.

 

I am truely amazed by people who know everything. One can learn so much from them. I'll bet it was V. who was actually the Buddha in one of his former lifes.

 

Your just protecting your ego with sarcasm.

 

So when you were the Buddha why did you piss so many people off that it caused one of them to feed you poisonous mushrooms and kill you?

 

I wasn't the Buddha. But, that just goes to show how ignorant people can act when their mistaken views are challenged. The Buddha seemed to know what was going to happen because he forbade all his disciples to accompany him.

 

At least Lao Tzu walked off into the desert and probably died of dehydration.

 

Sheesh.

 

So why is Taoism different? There has never been a Taoist who has ever claimed they know everything. And there has never been a Taoist who has claimed that they were superior to any other aspect of Tao.

 

That doesn't say much about Taoism to me. But if it does to you... you go ahead and have your process of progression.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

At least your honest with the limits of your experience, but don't limit others by it.

 

And you are very dishonest about yours. And don't tell people that they can fly because they can't.

 

I never try to limit anyone. But I do suggest they they keep their aspirations within the realms of reality.

 

If you think you can fly I suggest that you go see a shrink before you make your first attempt.

 

If you think you are all-knowing I suggest that you let go all those freekin' delusions. People will start thinking you are crazy.

 

Happy Trails!