Why Taoism is different

[Vajrahridaya]

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).

 

Buddhas are. I'm a Buddhist, not a Buddha.

 

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

 

Not that I need your permission or anything, but thanks.

 

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

 

I'm not asking you to buy it... or see it for that reason. Maybe someone else reading will make sense of it and understand something that evolves them?

 

To let you know... when you say... "I don't know"... you are saying your ignorant about something. So... I'm ignorant about many things myself. Just not the same things that you are ignorant about. You taking it personally and getting defensive about it... is... well...

 

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

 

What? So airplanes aren't really flying people all over the world?

 

No really... I know what you mean. You'd be surprised actually what people can do when they let go of their ideas about reality and go deeper into dependent origination.

 

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

 

Which you are the soul keeper of... yes? I'm being sarcastic.

 

People will start thinking you are crazy.

 

If the crazy majority of the planet stuck in Samsara think I'm crazy? Sadly... they should look at themselves more often.

[Marblehead]

So why are you here in the "Why Taoism is Different" thread?

 

You are only showing your ignorance. Of course you are not a Buddha.

 

If Buddha was all-seeing why didn't he see that his mushrooms had been poisoned? Kinda' suggests that he wasn't as all-seeing as he thought he was.

 

Anyhow, I am tired of talking about the inferiority of the Buddhist religion here in the Taoist thread. I will go back over to the Buddhist thread and talk about what makes Taoism different.

 

Happy Trails!

 

BTW I didn't waste my time reading your last post.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

If Buddha was all-seeing why didn't he see that his mushrooms had been poisoned? Kinda' suggests that he wasn't as all-seeing as he thought he was.

 

Actually the texts suggest that he actually did see it coming. Just like Nagarjuna saw his death coming as many great masters saw their deaths coming. You should read, "Graceful Exits: How Great Beings Die" By Shushila Blackman... Link to it on Amazon. Check it out Marble... it's a genuinely nice read.

Anyhow, I am tired of talking about the inferiority of the Buddhist religion here in the Taoist thread. I will go back over to the Buddhist thread and talk about what makes Taoism different.

 

Cool..

[Marblehead]

Actually the texts suggest that he actually did see it coming. Just like Nagarjuna saw his death coming as many great masters saw their deaths coming. You should read, "Graceful Exits: How Great Beings Die" By Shushila Blackman... Link to it on Amazon. Check it out Marble... it's a genuinely nice read.

Cool..

 

You don't expect me to believe that fairy tale, do you?

 

We make up the stories as we go along. How neat!

 

C U over in the Buddhist Thread.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

You don't expect me to believe that fairy tale, do you?

 

We make up the stories as we go along. How neat!

 

C U over in the Buddhist Thread.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Actually I've known current great masters who saw their future death coming.

 

It's no fairy tale. As long as you are trapped in body consciousness, even while alive... you won't evolve past the 5 senses.

 

But... I guess that's your comfort zone.

[Marblehead]

Are we mellowing out now so we can stop insulting each other?

 

Why do you keep me pinned to the 5 senses? I have mentioned three or four times that I am a follower (beginner) of NA spirituality.

 

But yes, I am a realist. I have spread my arms and pretended I was jesus on the cross but I have never spread my arms and pretended they were wings and tried to fly.

 

Get Real!!!!!

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Get Real!!!!!

 

 

What's real?

 

Are we mellowing out now so we can stop insulting each other?

 

I never insulted you. You just took me saying that you don't know because of this or that excuse as an insult.

 

experiential excuse for ignorance or intellectual excuse for ignorance is not an insult. It's saying that you don't know because you can't put it together intellectually or experience that as such in a way to de-mystify it... as of yet. That's not an insult.

[William Douglas Horden]

Why Taoism is different. Paradoxically.

 

It is a lifeway of learning the lesson of water: be yielding, flow around rigid places, let time do the work of eroding, nurture everything you touch.

 

Yang within, Yin without.

Firmness of purpose within, unconditional flexibility without.

 

I find in Taoism a lifeway of absolute nonresistance. It seems to me that it constantly teaches to let everything pass through me without my setting up thoughts, emotions, memories or reactions that create friction. Kind of like a conduit made of absolutely the finest material that lets a rush of water jet through with no resistance whatsoever.

 

On a conceptual level, it teaches through the principle of non-differentiation, especially via the identification of appearance and reality. The Gold Lion, for example: its form is a lion and its substance is gold. They cannot be distinguished.

 

It doesn't seek differentiation. It seeks sameness. It is a spiritual strategy of not wasting energy.

 

It raises my gaze so that, once I stop wasting energy, I might ask "What do I do with this energy I have accumulated?"

 

What a path that leads to sublime art, poetry, truth, beauty, music, architecture and, most of all, laughter.

 

At least that's what I think this week.

William

[Marblehead]

What's real?

 

See! You don't even know what's real! Sheeezze!

 

I never insulted you. You just took me saying that you don't know because of this or that excuse as an insult.

 

At least I was being honest whereas you were claiming you know more than you can possibly know and that is what is insulting.

 

experiential excuse for ignorance or intellectual excuse for ignorance is not an insult. It's saying that you don't know because you can't put it together intellectually or experience that as such in a way to de-mystify it... as of yet. That's not an insult.

 

But again, it is an insult if you suggest that you can. You see, I admit that there are some things that are beyond my ability to intellectualize but you are suggesting that it is because I am intellectually ignorant that I cannot see the delusions you see.

 

Yes, I used to live in those Buddha type delusions. Hey! I was A Christian! How delusional is that? But I stopped pretending. I don't pretend that I know why the universe was created (this time around). And I don't pretend that I am going to live forever. That kind of stuff can be found in the fairy tales that end with: ... and they lived happily everafter.

 

No, just because we think we know something doesn't mean we actually know something.

 

If what you think you know was supported by varifiable evidence I would have been convinced a long time ago that you are on to something. As it is I am still thinking that you are just another lost soul.

 

So you go ahead on but understand that every time you make claims like that you are, in fact, insulting others and trying to proclaim "your", no the Buddhist, superiority and it reflects what a really huge ego you have.

 

Oh, sure, some will fall for your delusions and accept them as their own. But then, sad as it may be, they too will be wasting a part of their life playing with their delusion.

 

And that is why Taoism is different.

 

Yea! I kept this post within the subject of the thread!

 

Happy Trails!

Edited October 6, 2009 by Marblehead

[Mark Foote]

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.

 

Well, I'm not Mr. V., and I thought I had something to say about this but now I'm not so sure.

 

There are five skandas in the Gautamid's teaching, and the fifth is consciousness. They are identifications of self with phenomena, so the identification of self with phenomena of consciousness, the group of such identifications is the fifth skanda. The Gautamid also taught five arupa jhanas, abidings in nonmaterial "planes". These are the infinity of space (or ether), the infinity of consciousness, no-thing, neither perception nor yet nonperception, and cessation of (the activity of) perception and sensation. By activity was meant volitive activity. So the master would be correct in saying that the plane of the infinity of consciousness is succeeded by the plane of no-thing, as far as arupa jhanas are concerned, but I don't recall that a cessation of the skandhas is identified specifically in the sermon volumes. I'm probably wrong about that.

 

The three poisons of greed, hatred, and ignorance (which lead to further-becoming) cease with the cessation of perception and sensation, that much I know.

 

Returning to the discussion of dependent causation and the Tao existent before all creation, I think it's important to keep the baby when we throw away the bathwater. The Gautamid believed in the existence of small fairies, he stated as a given miracle the ability to stroke the sun and the moon with the hand, and at one point his teaching resulted in scores of his monks taking the knife every day for a couple of weeks. My personal mythology is that the death of a great spiritual teacher (so to speak) is accelerated by their inability to communicate the means of salvation to others, and that (I think) is really where the discussion should be aimed: what do these traditions have that we can receive, that can actually heal us, and that we can share with others?

 

I agree with Mr. V. that there are parts of Taoism that the Gautamid might have rejected as eternalist (and which are echoed in much of the Buddhist world anyway), and I agree with whomever said that Taoist medicine (and the whole notion of Chi?) is onto something real that is not mentioned in the Gautamid's teaching (at least not directly). I personally believe that cranial-sacral osteopathy is the first western examination of the phenomena that underlies Chinese medicine, and that is only in its infancy.

 

I like the idea of conserving energy, I don't even mind the idea of immortality, in the sense that Jesus spoke of entering heaven and heaven being within. I think the great spiritual teachings of the world are one thread, and if we don't come up with a way to communicate what it's all about in a way that people can understand soon, we will likely annihilate life on the planet.

 

we should speak to the point.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Mark Foote

[Marblehead]

 

I like the idea of conserving energy, I don't even mind the idea of immortality, in the sense that Jesus spoke of entering heaven and heaven being within. I think the great spiritual teachings of the world are one thread, and if we don't come up with a way to communicate what it's all about in a way that people can understand soon, we will likely annihilate life on the planet.

 

we should speak to the point.

 

So perhaps you could start a thread that includes the concepts of conserving energy, your concept of cranial-sacral osteopathy and how it relates to the spiritual aspect of life.

 

BTW Taoism really isn't different. It just is.

 

Peace & Love!

[Mark Foote]

So perhaps you could start a thread that includes the concepts of conserving energy, your concept of cranial-sacral osteopathy and how it relates to the spiritual aspect of life.

 

BTW Taoism really isn't different. It just is.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Tao may be spoken of and it is not a constant Tao.

Its essence may be manifested and it is not a constant manifestation.

As Wu, it marks the beginnings of all beings;

As Yo, it is the mother for all beings.

Therefore,

As true Wu, it is to show its transmuting appearance (of Yo);

As true Yo, it is to show its transmuting disappearance (into Wu).

The two emanate from the same;

They are different manifestations of the same.

It is profound and profound.

This is the gateway to all mysteries.

 

Like that (I'm still reading the back pages). Nothin' but change, as far as the eye can see!

 

I'd start another thread, but I'm not done with this one... love ya, ya'old blockhead! yers truly Mark

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Like that (I'm still reading the back pages). Nothin' but change, as far as the eye can see!

 

 

 

Well, see this is probably where Buddhism departs then... Because even emptiness is not considered an established paradigm beyond mind and vision. Thus, there is no absolute that transcends...

 

According to Buddhayo. Rather... everything is considered self transcendent, because nothing is inherently established ever.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[exorcist_1699]

What I claim different is the unique Taoist jing-qi-shen way towards the ontological core hidden in this cosmos that both systems, Buddhism and Taoism , concur . Taoist criticism on many Buddhist methods' mistakes , which most Buddhists make , is that only by relying on our daily experiences and consciousness , our yin-mind, no matter how mindless a status we reach , hardly can we break through into that door, entering another new arena (In Chinese Zen's saying : "破參").It is like you can't pull your hair and make yourself arise above the ground, to a high level ..

 

This is why the famous Zen's sixth master , Huei Lang("惠能") , who lived in the times of the Tang Dynasty in China , after having attaining the absolute mindless status:

 

Originally there is nothingness (本來無一物)

by no way can we attach to any impurity (何處惹塵埃)

 

(based on my clumsy translation )

 

still had to hide in the Guangdong province among the hunters for more than a 14-year time , further polishing his achievement before his emerging as a public Zen master.

 

 

Saying that a mind "neither thinking of good , nor thinking of evil " (不思善,不思惡) is all what it is , is unlikely true .There are still a lot of unspoken secrets .

 

Our yin-mind, in fact, is a pseudo-mind which can't radically change itself by just making a series of self-negations ( it is interesting to compare it with Hegel's phenomenology of spirit) , instead it has to rely on the help of our genuine Ego , which, unfortunately is far retreating into its opposite , secret location . The situation that a guest is misidentified as the host must be reversed:

 

無量刼來生死種

痴人喚作本來人

[Marblehead]

Well, see this is probably where Buddhism departs then... Because even emptiness is not considered an established paradigm beyond mind and vision. Thus, there is no absolute that transcends...

 

According to Buddhayo. Rather... everything is considered self transcendent, because nothing is inherently established ever.

 

That was almost enlightening. Hehehe.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

What I claim different is the unique Taoist jing-qi-shen way towards the ontological core ...

 

That was an interesting post. I have nothing to say to it but it was interesting none-the-less. Thanks.

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

What I claim different is the unique Taoist jing-qi-shen way towards the ontological core hidden in this cosmos that both systems, Buddhism and Taoism , concur .

 

Buddhism does not concur. There is no ontological core, or primal essence, mysterious self of all, there is none of this in Buddhism.

 

This is considered a mistaken cognition in Buddhism.

[Mark Foote]

Well, see this is probably where Buddhism departs then... Because even emptiness is not considered an established paradigm beyond mind and vision. Thus, there is no absolute that transcends...

 

According to Buddhayo. Rather... everything is considered self transcendent, because nothing is inherently established ever.

 

Hey, Mr. V.,

 

"Everything changes; work out your own salvation."

 

you left me in the dirt with those relationships, quoted above, spinning dirty in the sky without a north to constellate with!

 

yours,

Mark

[Mark Foote]

 

 

Originally there is nothingness (本來無一物)

by no way can we attach to any impurity (何處惹塵埃)

 

Saying that a mind "neither thinking of good , nor thinking of evil " (不思善,不思惡) is all what it is , is unlikely true .There are still a lot of unspoken secrets .

 

 

I love both of these things, especially "by no way can we attach to any impurity". And the triumvirate of jing-chi-shen is being good to me, I appreciate the voices (yours among them) who added that to the "Taoism different from Buddhism" dialogue. I have in my writing and in my practice concluded that the place of occurrence of consciousness acts, through reciprocal innervation (muscles signaled to contract through the stretch of fascia, in agonist/antagonist pairs throughout the body). Thus, consciousness before discrimination sits, and moves. Emptiness exploding into pieces, the moments of consciousness, the impact in the fascial stretch as consciousness takes place, the feeling. Jing the stretch in existence as consciousness takes place, chi the movement of breath, shen the occurrence of consciousness balanced between. My practice (Marblehead, ignore this!).

 

ok, and $1.75 gets a cup of coffee here at Peet's. By no way can we attach to any impurity. The end of suffering, from the cessation of ignorance. The guest mistaking the host might want an end of suffering, the pure man breathing to his heals might too, yet for both by no way can we attach! Ha ha.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Mark Foote

[Vajrahridaya]

Hey, Mr. V.,

 

"Everything changes; work out your own salvation."

 

you left me in the dirt with those relationships, quoted above, spinning dirty in the sky without a north to constellate with!

 

yours,

Mark

 

Well... we take refuge in the triple jewel, not an abstract and transcendent concept. So, the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha is our North star.

 

Take care.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[secularfuture]

I wrote a little about this in my introductory post:

 

Unlike some of the other religions that I experimented with, Taoism doesn't have any hangups about the material world or sexuality, it's not bogged down by a bunch of lists, rules, and terminology, and one of the primary purposes for Taoist practice is very direct and simple - to live in harmony with the Tao. It presents a very natural way to live.

[innerspace_cadet]

I like Taoism because it seems to be the most open ended belief system I've come across. Taoists don't create elaborate theologies about the Tao, they instead try to just live in harmony with it. So in that sense it is very much a this worldly philosophy/religion. A lot of Taoist philosophers seemed content to accept the mysterious nature of life and death and leave it at that. Personally I'm suspicious of religions that seek to provide all the answers.

[Marblehead]

(Marblehead, ignore this!).

 

 

Hehehe. No, I'm not going to ignore your posts because you oftentimes say something that I think is important. That's why I don't ignore V.'s posts either. Every now and then he does say something of importance.

 

But that's what I love about Taoism - I am allowed to descriminate between things I feel are useful to me and things that I consider to be useless (to me).

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

I wrote a little about this in my introductory post:

 

Unlike some of the other religions that I experimented with, Taoism doesn't have any hangups about the material world or sexuality, it's not bogged down by a bunch of lists, rules, and terminology, and one of the primary purposes for Taoist practice is very direct and simple - to live in harmony with the Tao. It presents a very natural way to live.

 

 

Amen!

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

I like Taoism because it seems to be the most open ended belief system I've come across. Taoists don't create elaborate theologies about the Tao, they instead try to just live in harmony with it. So in that sense it is very much a this worldly philosophy/religion. A lot of Taoist philosophers seemed content to accept the mysterious nature of life and death and leave it at that. Personally I'm suspicious of religions that seek to provide all the answers.

 

 

Encore Amen!

[Mark Foote]

Well... we take refuge in the triple jewel, not an abstract and transcendent concept. So, the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha is our North star.

 

Take care.

I think we're fortunate to have the early works, both in the Tripitaka and in Taoism, apparently. And in the gnostic gospels.

 

I read that the original summons to the five ascetics was, "come, live the life of purity to make an end of suffering". And at the end of his life, the Gautamid declared it was only necessary to observe the three principle rules (unfortunately nobody knows which three he was referring to).

 

I met a Zen teacher in Palo Alto, and she was certain I should find a teacher, and work on my posture. I told her I had considered zazen my teacher, since the day it got up and walked around; I wonder if we cannot communicate now in the vocabulary of all three early teachings, and kinethesiology, and cranial-sacral therapy, talk to people about the funny intersection of will and hypnotic phenomena around the breath.

 

I will take a chance, and dedicate my life to this, because I have no choice. Do you have a choice, when you take refuge, I wonder... I feel a stranger when you invoke the Buddhist idea, I have to say. I'm pretty much a failure, on the Buddhist trail alone, I'm afraid. I feel some life when I recall the practices in all three, however, and especially when I find that I have let go of being anyone again. How hard it must be to keep these institutions alive, my hat is off to all those who have, what an admirable life!

 

yours, Mark

Edited October 17, 2009 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

 

Because grasp of concepts such as post-heavenly qi and pre-heavenly qi may sound difficult to some people , I think some kind of operational definition maybe helpful : qi that you can initiate by paying attention to certain place of your body, likely the location called dantian , is called post-heavenly qi ; qi that you can initiate by paying attention to nothing/nowhere under a much clearer mind ( Awakening ) is called pre-heavenly qi .

Of course, it is only an operation repeatedly done successfully by a small group of people ,some kind of

collective truth in a small range no match to any scientific test , so I oppose calling it any scientific truth ;

 

There is some truth beyond the reach of science .

 

I think the difference between Taoism and Buddhism is in the emphasis, primarily.

 

I like the triumvirate, jing-chi-shen, as a description of the elements of practice. In the Pali Cannon sermons, the Gautamid speaks of "the intent concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths"; he also speaks of consciousness, and of the phenomena associated with the occurrence of consciousness. Although the parallel is not exact, I feel as though the Gautamid adressed chi and shen, but did not directly address jing; indirectly, yes, but not explicitly. He de-emphasized phenomena associated with the serpent on Ascelpius's staff, so to speak.

 

exorcist_1699, I appreciate your posts. I'm hoping you will be interested in an explanation of practice with pre-heavenly qi, post-heavenly qi, in kinesthetic terms.

 

Cheng Man-ching, the Tai-Chi master, spoke of chi sinking to the tan-tien, circulating throughout the body, and finally overflowing the tan-tien to the tailbone and up the spine to the top of the head. He cautioned that no force must be used in the movement of chi from the tan-tien to the tailbone and up the spine, and that consulting a teacher or fellow students might be advisable.

 

My experience is this: the flexion-extension of the cranial-sacral system at the sacrum stretches the sacro-spinous ligaments and the sacro-tuberous ligaments, and these ligaments induce reciprocal innervation in the muscles that hammock the pelvis off the hips and rotate the pelvis on the hips. As the pelvis rotates, the stretch of fascia behind the sacrum innervates the piriformis muscles and the extensors, and the psoas muscle is innervated in response to the activity in the extensors. The sides of the psoas muscle rotate the balance of the body around the vicinity of the tan-tien, before the sides of the psoas slide over the pubes to align the hips and permit the tip and rotation of the pelvis around the sacrum.

 

Because the spontaneous place of occurrence of consciousness coordinates the autonomic respiration of breath and of cranial-sacral fluid, paying attention to nothing in particular (and yet excluding nothing) develops the rhythm of both respirations (pre-heavenly qi); because attendance to particular places is a part of the development of the stretches necessary to reciprocal innervation, qi also develops through the recollection of the sign of the concentration in practice, at the tan-tien, behind the sacrum, and elsewhere (post-heavenly qi). How important is the movement of the butterfly bone in the skull that terminates on the sides of the eye-sockets, I don't know, but I suspect equally as important as the free movement of the sacrum. Free movement of the sacrum depends on support for the lower spine in the movement of breath, in the ilio-lumbar ligaments (2 sets, the vertical set engaged in inhalation, the horizontal set engaged in expiration). The movement of breath, the cranial-sacral rhythm, and the free occurrence of consciousness, I think these three are present with different emphasis in all the spiritual teachings.

 

Is it enough to just tell people to sit with the legs crossed and hold the body upright, to cover jing? Not for me, it wasn't enough, I couldn't find my way; I'm grateful for the Taoist teachings and the martial arts of China, particularly Tai-Chi and Xing Yi, and for the freedom to include an ordinary life as sacred that Taoism implies. I'm satisfied it will all work out, with a little good will.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I will take a chance, and dedicate my life to this, because I have no choice. Do you have a choice, when you take refuge, I wonder... I feel a stranger when you invoke the Buddhist idea, I have to say. I'm pretty much a failure, on the Buddhist trail alone, I'm afraid. I feel some life when I recall the practices in all three, however, and especially when I find that I have let go of being anyone again. How hard it must be to keep these institutions alive, my hat is off to all those who have, what an admirable life!

 

yours, Mark

Nice...

 

 

I think the difference between Taoism and Buddhism is in the emphasis, primarily.

 

I like the triumvirate, jing-chi-shen, as a description of the elements of practice. In the Pali Cannon sermons, the Gautamid speaks of "the intent concentration on in-breaths and out-breaths"; he also speaks of consciousness, and of the phenomena associated with the occurrence of consciousness. Although the parallel is not exact, I feel as though the Gautamid adressed chi and shen, but did not directly address jing; indirectly, yes, but not explicitly. He de-emphasized phenomena associated with the serpent on Ascelpius's staff, so to speak.

 

I think we do in Vajrayana though and Traditional Tibetan Medicine, but I couldn't tell you details though I know people that could.