Why Taoism is different

[Mila_Now]

If we explore this issue via Madhyamaka reasoning (a la Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika) we might say: the phrase "dependent origination" -- as a linguistic/conceptual category -- exists only in relation to the phrase "independent existence" (or "true existence" or whatever else would be its opposite). As such, its ontological status is identical to all other conceptual/linguistic categories (i.e. words or phrases), viz. it itself is dependently originated.

 

As a skillful means, its relative value (from a Buddhist perspective) might be greater than other words or phrases; but ultimately it, like all conceptual fabrications, must be dissolved/transcended -- in order finally to rest in the Nature of Mind, Dharmakaya.

 

To one who has realized Mahamudra/Dzogchen, phenomenal arisings (words, phrases, trees, flowers, anger, joy) are no longer a problem, because they are seen clearly and experienced directly as waves arising from the ocean of Dharmakaya.

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

Your just protecting your ego.

 

There is no other way to interpret this...

 

"Before Heaven and Earth are born (the beginning of duality),

there is something formless (beyond concept)

and complete in itself (shines from it's own side).

Impalpable and everlasting,

silent and undisturbed,

standing alone (shines from it's own side) and unchanging (static),

it exercises itself gently,

and generates itself inexhaustively

in all dimensions. (is the shining of the shown)

It may be regarded as the Mother of all things (the source of all things).

Far beyond humankind's relative conception (mysterious ambiguity),

it cannot be referred to by a specific name (oh is that Brahman I hear?),

yet it may be identified

as the subtle essence of the universe. (Ontological essence)

In the absence of an accurate word,

I shall call it "the Great"." (Mahabrahman) "Which means the great indescribable absolute"

 

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.

 

It's not revealing the same truth... sorry.

 

I am not trying to make Tao and dependent origination "equal in meaning".

 

Then the two paths lead to different realizations and therefore Buddhahood is not the same as Taoist Immortal.

 

My point, once again, is that in declaring your concept of dependent origination as being the fundamental cause of reality

 

Interdependent origination is showing that there is no cause, no primal cause at all. That's why Buddhism is not a top down path where there is some ineffable non-thing behind everything.

 

Dependent origination is NOT A CAUSE!!

 

 

 

you are making dependent origination "real" and thereby, once again by the conventional definition, reifying it.

 

Nope, I am not. It's merely how the seemingness of things flow. Your not seeing the meaning of my words. So... this is quite pointless. You are quite attached to your view. You are having a hard time seeing the viewless view. It can only happen through an epiphany. Go ahead... say it right back to me.

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.

 

Yes, I have and yes, I do know it.

By your superficial and obviously fallacious understanding of Taoism you are disqualified from comparing it to anything else.

Your opinion is not the measure of my realization.

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.

 

You keep re-bringing it up.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Vajrahridaya,

 

Your post only reaffirms your inability and unwillingness to do what you are asking of us - to view your concept of dependent origination on its own terms from a true Buddhist perspective.

 

Until you can explore and discuss Taoism without making your hierarchical inferences about the superiority of Buddhism you will never truly enter dialogue here.

[exorcist_1699]

The "traps " of Buddhist method , to many people , are :

 

1) Instead of grasping the core of Buddhism by pure intuition , most people , after years of fruitless effort, retreat to trying to manipulate it as a system of reasoning , which unfortunately makes them deviates more distant from the right way .

 

2)Instead of achieving Enlightenment in mediation, most people, by solely relying on their post-heavenly yin-mind , likely will be trapped in mindless stagnation and waste a lot of valuable time in their life ( Taoist treatment of this issue is the introduction of the trigrams : Kan and Li...) . Besides, with their legs cross sitting there for hours yet incapable of initiating high quality qi , which originally is not any Buddhist element , people likely get sick let alone a healthier body.

Edited October 2, 2009 by exorcist_1699

[Marblehead]

One of the things I like most about Taoism is that we are not required to keep thinking on some dogma all the time. We are allowed to stop thinking and just live intutitively, enjoying to the fullest all the beauty life has afforded us.

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

To me V. seems to be ignoring the Shen-tong view (which I quoted somewhere above or in another thread) which views the Dharma-dhatu or Buddha-nature as an existent. Even Rang-tong commentators point out the difference between the intellectual position of dependent origination and 'positive' emptiness of the space-like nature of reality. Grasping the view of emptiness of phenomena in Buddhism is essential and it is a kind of mental discipline which guards against reification - but it is not meant to be a weapon to attack other systems and religions.

[Mila_Now]

Eva Wong -- a deep practitioner of both Taoist & Tibetan (Nyingma) paths -- has suggested an at least approximate equivalent between the Taoist Three Treasures & the Trikaya (Buddhist Three Bodies of Awakened Mind):

 

Dharmakaya = Shen

Sambogakaya = Qi

Nirmanakaya = Jing

 

I have found this to be a useful & interesting way of placing the two traditions in conversation -- irrespective of whether or not the formulation could be worked out, technically/conceptually, in a way that satisfies both "camps."

[Marblehead]

Eva Wong -- a deep practitioner of both Taoist & Tibetan (Nyingma) paths -- has suggested an at least approximate equivalent between the Taoist Three Treasures & the Trikaya (Buddhist Three Bodies of Awakened Mind):

 

Dharmakaya = Shen

Sambogakaya = Qi

Nirmanakaya = Jing

 

I have found this to be a useful & interesting way of placing the two traditions in conversation -- irrespective of whether or not the formulation could be worked out, technically/conceptually, in a way that satisfies both "camps."

 

Okay. Let's see how this works out.

 

Shen = Spirit

Qi = Energy

Jing = Essence

 

The Three Treasures:

 

Compassion

Frugality

Humility

 

So could we say?:

 

Spirit = Compassion

Energy = Frugality

Essence = Humility

 

Comments anyone?

 

Happy Trails!

[Apech]

 

Energy = Frugality

 

 

 

Don't get this one.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Okay. Let's see how this works out.

 

Shen = Spirit

Qi = Energy

Jing = Essence

 

The Three Treasures:

 

Compassion

Frugality

Humility

 

So could we say?:

 

Spirit = Compassion

Energy = Frugality

Essence = Humility

 

Comments anyone?

 

Happy Trails!

 

Jing = humility/preserving precepts. I think frugality fits more into this because there's all the focus on "preserving" jing. (Or, eh, semen ).

Qi = meditative cultivation/freeing of past habits

Shen = freedom through wisdom and compassion

 

So I see Jing as a measure to keep that which is good, Qi as developing that good for all its potentials, and Shen to be a finalization of that good through wisdom.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Don't get this one.

 

Preserving energy - frugality.

 

But what Lucky pointed out is good too.

 

Happy Trails!

[JustARandomPanda]

I have not read this thread at all but I wanted to post something strange experienced today.

 

It has to do with Ego Inflation and how it relates to the Tao and Realization of the Tao.

 

First off...let me state..I do not agree with VH that Buddhism is somehow transcendent of Taoism. Let me try to explain. I believe they are two paths that will lead to the exact same "phase state" or "realization" - for lack of a better term.

 

One takes the path of Ambiguity and life's mysteries.

The other takes the path of Clear Stages and Steps.

 

Both are manifest in our lives at all times at the exact same time.

 

When vsaluki told VH (in the What Makes Buddhism Different thread) he was hiding behind words in one sense he was right. vsaluki was asking VH to please explain the mechanics of how this Dependent Origination happens. VH perhaps thought Vsaluki was being obtuse or just not evolved enough in his understanding.

 

I think both were right in their various arguments and explanations.

 

VH is right about (and so are Atheists!) to say there is no God. But vsaluki was also right in saying VH had not answered the questions he and other Taoists have in how the mechanics of this Dependent Origination causes creation of life and everything in the universe to Be. Vsaluki was pointing out what Taoists already know...that even Buddhism's Dependent Origination is not able to explain the mechanics of this. I think the Dalai Lama intuitively realizes this - hence his utter fascination with Science and the Scientific Method. It is why he doesn't see a conflict between Science and Buddhism and is continuously eager to help scientists and maintain a dialogue with them.

 

Both Buddhists and Taoists (and other *ists*) will arrive at the exact same phase shift of Awakened Awareness - Crystal Consciousness though they will get there via different paths. The process is Mechanical via a process Taoists (maybe Buddhists too?) became aware of over a thousand years ago - Yin/Yang. It is mechanical, not mystical.

 

Follow the practices and advice given (take your pick - Lao Tzu's Tao te Ching or the Buddha's 8-fold Path) and Yin/Yang process is at work (in fact it's always at work - you're just busy becoming aware of it).

 

So whether via the path of Ambiguity (Findley's Mysterious Pass he's so fond of) or Buddhism's more precise steps you will end up seeing Cosmic Ego - aka God.

 

This gets back to my other post about Ego Inflation. This is a mechanical process on our path of awakening whether via Taoism or Buddhism (or dare I say Christianity, Islam or any other ism if you keep at the process long enough). It is such a mechanical process that Mathematicians have been able to express it symbolically via math! It's mechanical..natural. If this were not so there would be nothing for a Buddha or Taoist Immortal to gain clarity awareness of.

 

The Process:

 

Once the Seeker / Practitioner has exhausted (read: enough Yin/Yang transitions have played out) all the stages of "seeing past the Self" the Ego will inflate AGAIN to match the new phase shift.

 

Since the Seeker/Practitioner has now "seen through Itself" the process (Yin/Yang at work, remember?) keeps going. Only this time it will do so to match the new scale - Cosmic Infinity. Nature abhors a vacuum. So Ego will inflate to fill the vacuum. It is Natural. It is NATURE to fill the vacuum. This is when the Taoist or Buddhist or any other *ist* (including the Atheist!) will experience the Divine as All. We are All One. I and God are one, etc.

 

The process continues. Eventually the Cosmic Ego will transition again (i.e. the Cosmic Ego Awareness - aka I and God are One - will phase shift again). When this happens the otherness, transcendent yet immanent majesty of "God" dissolves. It all goes down the drain.

 

It is Awareness coming full circle. Seeing itself...that it has inflated itself to fill the vacuum. The Buddha was right. The first Noble Truth is true. However...I think the way it's been interpreted has been misleading in the West. He wasn't talking about "suffering" only as we, popularly think of it (although he obviously included that too). I think a more accurate way of stating the First Noble Truth would be to say that Life is Impermanent Happiness. Notice how this does not contradict the truths Lao Tzu talks about in the Tao Te Ching.

 

I had this 'insight' if you will - today - of all places - while pondering at a grocery parking lot! A most ordinary and quite mundane of places to get a glimpse into the workings of sentience.

 

And here's the weirder part. I now see how "I" am not even the "author" or..hmm..not even a "conduit" of this explanation. It's just...Yin/Yang..Tao...expressing. So "I" - to be completely and technically correct - can not even claim "I" had this insight. How freaky is that?

 

This all happened in a flash and just as quickly it was gone. The Buddha and Lao Tzu were both right. I object with VH that Buddhism is somehow "transcendent" of Taoism. They are BOTH at the SAME TIME elucidating the same truth. The process will happen with or without us understanding it (meaning the 'analytical, thinking, higher portion of the brain). And in that sense - Taoism is "transcendent" of Buddhism in getting this point across to people.

 

So Taoists...hold your head high. The process / the journey you are on will manifest in you just as much as in Buddhists (or any other ists). It can't be otherwise...

 

It just is.

[Stigweard]

A nice vote for equality SereneBlue Well said!

[Mark Foote]

Hi, all,

 

Well lots of personal and interesting approaches to the journey being spoken here, and I'd like to jump on the raft and sink it purely by the weight of bodies!

 

I liked the toothless Taoist (thanks, Marblehead). I like the dependant origination discussion, and the point about Taoism positing something somewhere as different from Buddhism, although there is a later sermon volume (the fifth Sutta collection) that includes the oft-quoted "if it were not for the unborn, there would be no buddha-nature" or words to that effect. A later attribution, not uttered by the man in India. I agree that the Buddhist analysis does not allow of a something somewhere, but I don't mind a feeling that our existence has relationships that came into being with the universe, as long as I accept that there may come a time when there is no existence. My personal wondering.

 

I think the trick in any religion is how you funnel a living interaction of consciousness, impact, and feeling down to a teaching that can be of use to someone at sometime somewhere as they turn toward a living interaction. Everyone has the first principle. It's my belief that nothing can be communicated oneway, that the real art is finding the mystical communion of the shared symbol set, two arrows meeting in space.

 

Dependent orgination, yes, but there is a happiness associated with the cessation of (volition in) perception and sensation, so said the Gautamid, and he acknowledged that this seemed to contradict the purified equanimity that proceeds the cessation. That's part of dependent origination to me, that we cannot resist the happiness associated with well-being. So we can drop it all. And emptiness explodes into pieces.

 

Cleverly concealed in the high-phalutin' Chinese Taoist and Zen teachings are concrete descriptions of practice, very physical as well as very mental, and how to find a way in. The sacrum is a sacred bone, I think, and the lotus isolates the cranial-sacral rhythm at the sacrum; if you don't like the lotus, then the single-weighted posture of Tai-chi is the source of the movement, not volition, because the cranial-sacral rhythm causes the ligaments and fascia to generate motion as they are stretched. Strength from the ligaments. motion without motion. Three components described over and over. Sit upright, setting mindfulness of breath in front, holding onto nothing in this world. Jing, chi, shen.

 

how'ma doin.

 

Mark

[JustARandomPanda]

 

Dependent orgination, yes, but there is a happiness associated with the cessation of (volition in) perception and sensation, so said the Gautamid, and he acknowledged that this seemed to contradict the purified equanimity that proceeds the cessation. That's part of dependent origination to me, that we cannot resist the happiness associated with well-being. So we can drop it all. And emptiness explodes into pieces.

 

Can someone clarify this paragraph for me. Part of me keeps thinking *maybe* I understand what he's saying but then I stop and realize...well..no I don't understand at all.

 

Cleverly concealed in the high-phalutin' Chinese Taoist and Zen teachings are concrete descriptions of practice, very physical as well as very mental, and how to find a way in.

This is why I say Buddhism is not Transcendent of Taoism. You do ABC in Taoism...you will get XYZ results...

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya,

 

Your post only reaffirms your inability and unwillingness to do what you are asking of us - to view your concept of dependent origination on its own terms from a true Buddhist perspective.

 

 

What are you talking about Stig? These words have meanings so if these words that you quoted that I have examined mean something other than what they are saying as they are defined in the dictionary. Then what's the point of the words?

 

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.

 

Until you can explore and discuss Taoism without making your hierarchical inferences about the superiority of Buddhism you will never truly enter dialogue here.

 

I am not stating that it's superior. You are. Of course I think it's superior and that will subtley come out in my posts with words like transcend, because dependent origination transcends monist eternalism and mystical ambiguity to me, not to you though, but as your post quoting the Tao De Ching also insinuated that Taoism is superior. I'm stating how it's different and why Buddhism does not accept Taoist philosophical tenets.

[JustARandomPanda]

It is Awareness coming full circle. Seeing itself...that it has inflated itself to fill the vacuum. The Buddha was right. The first Noble Truth is true. However...I think the way it's been interpreted has been misleading in the West. He wasn't talking about "suffering" only as we, popularly think of it (although he obviously included that too). I think a more accurate way of stating the First Noble Truth would be to say that Life is Impermanent Happiness. Notice how this does not contradict the truths Lao Tzu talks about in the Tao Te Ching.

 

Addendum to the above:

 

I think I see now why the Buddha stated the First Noble Truth (and it's translated) the way he did.

 

Have you ever noticed how people state once they hit a certain sustained level of meditative Realization they ALL state that Bliss is the Natural / True state of 'being'? The Bliss is Always There they say. It always ever was. We just aren't aware of it. I have read this statement or something comparable to it over and over and over by people from all walks of life. East, West, North, South - Religious, Atheist, Agnostic.

 

There's a reason why they say "The Bliss is always there" - It's True Nature.

 

But notice what they have to do and achieve in order to gain that Realization in the first place!

 

So what is preventing EVERYONE from defaulting to this "Bliss Awareness" automatically - ZERO effort or Meditation skill required?

 

Something is obscuring us from being aware of it. And the Obscuring IS "the Suffering" precisely BECAUSE it prevents us from being born with this default Bliss Awareness as our Standard Operating Procedure. What happens when babies are born? They CRY. Why would any sentient being whose SOP is nascent Infinite Bliss Awareness ever Cry - even when struck?

 

Why do we have a medical industry, psychiatry and optimism psychology dedicated to helping people cope? Again this implies something is obscuring access to this manifesting innate Bliss Awareness.

 

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.

 

But MB WAS right when he talked about how one can choose to view less-than-positive events positively by deciding how to interpret the event. But not - I believe - in the way he thinks he is. LOL (don't you just love this MB?) The story we tell ourselves - when we see it is - to some degree - tapping into that deep truth of Innate, nascent Bliss Awareness. However..Positive Thinking.. doesn't go deep enough (which is what I believe is MB's objection to the Buddha's First Noble Truth assertion - he's just not Positive (not true, the Buddha and Buddhism is precisely Optimistic to the core).

 

Again...go back to what I said...the Suffering the Buddha was talking about is the Obscuring manifesting (what a yin/yang thing to do ). That's why normal, everyday happiness and happy situations are transient. To the being that 'lives in the Power of Now Bliss Awareness' (to use some Tolle terminology) transience doesn't even exist - that's why it comes close to the Tao. It's ALL the Power of Now. All Bliss, All the Time. 24/7 - regardless of the Yin/Yang fluxing going on.

 

While it itself (the Bliss Awareness) is not the Tao it is probably the closest humans will ever come to awareness of it. And once they've attained that Awareness - had a 'brush' with it - they will manifest it naturally (how Wu Wei of them!). Like water flowing down a mountain.

 

This is why I believe all Meditation traditions (Taoist included) all say to go deep with meditation. It's to get beyond the Obscuring to find the deep truth.

 

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

I'm pretty sure VH will tear me a new one too. And I'll enjoy that too! Learning is fun!

 

*****

 

I am not stating that it's superior. You are. Of course I think it's superior and that will subtley come out in my posts with words like transcend, because dependent origination transcends monist eternalism and mystical ambiguity to me, not to you though, but as your post quoting the Tao De Ching also insinuated that Taoism is superior. I'm stating how it's different and why Buddhism does not accept Taoist philosophical tenets.

 

As I understand it Taoism is Neither-Neither. Neither Monism nor Not-Monism. Neither Dualism nor Not-Dualism.

 

We are all to some degree, trapped by words.

 

I am probably one of the few people here who actually do believe you completely when you say there are senses human beings tap into once they get 'beyond' or 'past' or 'drop' the 5 default ones.

 

The cool thing is - Life's Processes will go on regardless of "Posts" Posting on the Internet. It's all Dependent Arising out of the Mysterious Pass anyway.

[Vajrahridaya]

To me V. seems to be ignoring the Shen-tong view (which I quoted somewhere above or in another thread) which views the Dharma-dhatu or Buddha-nature as an existent. Even Rang-tong commentators point out the difference between the intellectual position of dependent origination and 'positive' emptiness of the space-like nature of reality. Grasping the view of emptiness of phenomena in Buddhism is essential and it is a kind of mental discipline which guards against reification - but it is not meant to be a weapon to attack other systems and religions.

I am not Shen-tong. Emptiness is a weapon against erroneous views and the Buddha used dependent origination as a way to guide people away from incomplete paths as is recorded in the Pali Suttas.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

It just is.[/b][/color]

Not to rain on your parade, but all your conclusions are wrong even though you felt like it was a high up view of things. It's not at all in alignment with Buddhist insight into dependent origination, just the high bliss realms that are latent in your system since beginningless time that assume a mystic essence of all things that is "one" with all things. This leads to the assumption that all paths lead to the same place because they come from the same place and are all one with the Tao, or God.

 

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.

 

Also, about my debate with Vsaluki was about the fact that he couldn't except what dependent origination is stating, that there is no source to the universe and that dependent origination indeed does explain exactly how things come into being without a mysterious source or will.

 

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

Edited October 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[JustARandomPanda]

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

I agree. They are not the same at all. I stated there is no Divine Will. Divine Will is just the Ego Graspingly Inflated to Infinite Cosmic Regress. This is something that tiny 'flash' I had in the parking lot firmly refuted (refuted Divine Will that is).

 

You drew some wrong conclusions from my post - that being one of them - but that just means I didn't explain it clearly. I'm also firmly aware that I have no deep meditation insight whatsoever into any of this. Flashes don't mean squat. That's why teachers, texts and 'learn by doing' meditation are important.

 

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

In which case I'll eventually discover whatever the truth may be. It's all good in the woods.

 

I'm in no hurry to be right.

 

It's ALL just Ego posting on the Internet.

 

 

edit:

 

FYI - Just to state for the record - I don't believe in Divine Will.

 

Furthermore: I don't believe Taoists see Tao as equivalent to any of the Divine Will Wrong View stages you claim they have. You keep saying they do. They keep saying they don't. I just know that both statements can not be right.

Edited October 3, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Vajrahridaya]

 

You drew some wrong conclusions from my post - that being one of them -

 

You didn't say this?

 

This is when the Taoist or Buddhist or any other *ist* (including the Atheist!) will experience the Divine as All. We are All One. I and God are one, etc.

[JustARandomPanda]

 

You didn't say this?

 

 

It's a stage - a phase one goes through. It is the stage of Ego Graspingly Inflated to Infinite Cosmic Regress and thus imputing itself as God. It is a phase that must be seen through. It is an incorrect view. It's STILL EGO. Just EGO on an Infinitely Regressing Cosmic Scale.

Go back and re-read. I apologize if my explanation is muddy. I am actually AGREEING with the Buddha about that subject! It's an incorrect view.

 

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."

 

I also agree with this. It's just that unlike you I also believe the Tao is 'essence-less'. This is Lao Tzu's point. It's why he kept saying it's ineffable. Simply because one gains Realization of Dependent Arising doesn't mean one can EXPLAIN THE MECHANICS OF IT.

 

I admit I could be wrong about this. If there are Buddhist texts that explain the mechanics of Dependent Arising I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.

[Vajrahridaya]

I also agree with this. It's just that unlike you I also believe the Tao is 'essence-less'. It just goes about stating it in a different manner. We're just going to agree to disagree on this one.

 

The teaching that there is a mother to all 10,000 things that is beyond concept that is before heaven and earth and is ineffable is not compatible with Buddhist insight into dependent origination.

 

As I understand it Taoism is Neither-Neither. Neither Monism nor Not-Monism. Neither Dualism nor Not-Dualism.

 

This is the kind of paradoxical statement akin to monist views. Regardless of if you call it that or not, this is the type of realization that arises from the subtle clinging to Eternalism. I used to say things like this all the time. Ambiguous and paradoxical statements like... Brahman is all and nothing, is both manifest and non-manifest, both all concepts and beyond concepts. Such things like this arise from not seeing the clarity of dependent origination.

[JustARandomPanda]

BTW - I'm convinced Dependent Arising is in fact the correct view of the Universe so you're preaching to the choir here. I'm curious to see how Buddhism explains the mechanics of it.

 

While you're at it - I'd like to see the mechanics of Clarity Crystal Consciousness explained too. (and no...in case anyone thinks I am - I'm not being sarcastic...I really do want to know! )

[Vajrahridaya]

BTW - I'm convinced Dependent Arising is in fact the correct view of the Universe so you're preaching to the choir here. I'm curious to see how Buddhism explains the mechanics of it.

 

Read Myriad Worlds, or Abhidharma which is exhaustive. But, the book series that Myriad Worlds is from is complete. It's a huge series though.

 

 

Link on Wiki about Abhidharma... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma

 

Link on Wiki about the author of the Treasury of Knowledge from which Myriad Worlds is just one book... this is highly exhaustive and covers the entire history of Buddhism and all it's different turnings of the wheel from Hinayana to Dzogchen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamgon_Kongtr...ry_of_Knowledge

 

 

 

While you're at it - I'd like to see the mechanics of Clarity Crystal Consciousness explained too. (and no...in case anyone thinks I am - I'm not being sarcastic...I really do want to know! )

[/b][/color]

 

Check out the links above and maybe buy the book.