Why Taoism is different

[ralis]

I am going to take the liberty to modify this statement of yours.

 

What he fails to understand, is that Buddhist philosophy is heavily influenced by Greek Mythology.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

ralis

 

 

I'm a bit familiar and also there is not a complete general consensus to the time of the Buddhas birth. Anyway it was at least prior to the 500's B.C. with many considering even earlier than that. Also, Aristotle and Plato are from around the 300's B.C. The Herodotus was written after the Buddhas realization and many years after his work as a preacher of the Dharma. So, most likely it was the other way around. But most of the Greek philosophy still resolves around a true and self sustaining substance that is the platform from which the universe has life. The Hellenistic philosophers are still substantialists and don't see emptiness and dependent origination as the Buddha describes it.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble.

No... research past posts.

 

 

I am referring to all the writings after the Buddha passed on.

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks for clearing that up.

ralis

I am referring to all the writings after the Buddha passed on.

 

ralis

 

Connected to what the Buddha actually said. Abhidhamma is basically what the Buddha taught in an elaborated form by beings who realized the truth of dependent origination as expounded by the Buddha and has no Greek influence. The Abhidamma was written in the 300's B.C. or earlier...

 

The Buddha himself laid out the ground work for all the later turnings of the wheel by having a clear path to realization for both monks and lay disciples.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

So, anyhow, Lao Tzu said, "The heck with it." and wandered off into the mountains to the northwest and was never seen again.

 

But before he left he said,

 

"Trustworthy teachings are undecorated.

Decorated teachings are not trustworthy.

 

...

 

Whoever has mastered does not show a lot.

Whoever shows a lot has not mastered."

 

Chapter 81, Wayne L. Wang translation.

 

Happy Trails!

[JustARandomPanda]

Is anyone able to explain what is meant by the Ten Celestial Branches?

 

BTW - I just wanted to say what a beautiful person you are Marble. Whether you somehow have a grasp on "Truth" or not is immaterial to me as the generous and joyful person expressed - at least in your posts - is someone I aspire to be.

[Stigweard]

Is anyone able to explain what is meant by the Ten Celestial Branches?

Over here:

 

Ten Celestial Stems and Twelve Terrestrial Branches

[ralis]

Vajraji,

 

I submit the Buddha knows nothing as to how the cosmos works. You claim he understood Einstein's work. Your statements indicate you know nothing. Here is why.

 

I asked for an explanation of general and special relativity and all I get was "dependent origination" as a lame argument.

 

General relativity theory is concerned with the geometric property of spacetime. Spacetime is curved and this curvature affects planetary bodies in motion, time, free falling objects etc. Also this framework provides for the unification of special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation. If you need a deeper explanation, we can review Einstein's field equations.

 

To obtain your arguments from the above is absurd.

 

ralis

[Mark Foote]

Yes, one pointed focus does that. I love when I can feel my brain as percolating particles of light and bliss. My entire body feels like a walking rapturous spacious aquarium that's also porous. Not all the time... I'm no ordinary Buddha yet.

I was there in SF on Cole St. in 1975; what a time. Learned to dance at Mabuhay in the early '80's.

 

my miracle is one foot in front of the other, or whatever- tough to do anything when you discard the context of everything without discarding anything, but whatdyaknow, falling down hill is tougher.

Love ralis with the great shot of the joker Heath, and Marblehead reminding me that we are discussing something- are we having fun yet? Serene, tell us to be nice, wouldya... they won't hear it from yours truly.

 

love, Mark

[JustARandomPanda]

Vajraji,

 

I submit the Buddha knows nothing as to how the cosmos works. You claim he understood Einstein's work. Your statements indicate you know nothing. Here is why.

 

I asked for an explanation of general and special relativity and all I get was "dependent origination" as a lame argument.

 

General relativity theory is concerned with the geometric property of spacetime. Spacetime is curved and this curvature affects planetary bodies in motion, time, free falling objects etc. Also this framework provides for the unification of special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation. If you need a deeper explanation, we can review Einstein's field equations.

 

To obtain your arguments from the above is absurd.

 

ralis

 

Well all that is quite true. But I would also submit to not judge the Buddha solely by VH's posts. Do not hand over your power like that. Even the Buddha said to test his claims - that is go DO (read: actually DO the hard work of meditative practice so you attain ALL the levels and phase shifts of insight and concentration practice - practice with the dedication of a pro athlete). Test the Buddha's claims. That's what's beautiful about Buddhism (and Taoism!). It's rooted in a type of Empiricism. Keep going! Like the old Nike commercial said - "Just Do It".

 

 

Edit: I know VH gets under some people's skin (and no, in my very Unenlightened opinion that does not excuse him from the hard work of working on his posting personality to become less abrasive to non-enlightened people! No Bodhisattva would excuse himself/herself from diligently doing the work of altering their entrenched karmic persona)...

 

oh yeah...anyway...to get back to VH's defense...

 

The reason he gets exasperated at times with the counter-arguments from people here is that he HAS practiced with the dedication of a Pro Athlete. He's Been there. It's like Magic Johnson arguing with ME about Basketball and what it's REALLY LIKE and takes to be a Pro Basketball Player in the middle of a game.

[Marblehead]

Is anyone able to explain what is meant by the Ten Celestial Branches?

 

BTW - I just wanted to say what a beautiful person you are Marble. Whether you somehow have a grasp on "Truth" or not is immaterial to me as the generous and joyful person expressed - at least in your posts - is someone I aspire to be.

 

Thanks Sweetie. Now I will have to spend the next two weeks getting my ego back to the size it is supposed to be. Hehehe.

 

I'm this way in real life too.

 

Just a half hour ago I had a short discussion with my next door neighbor teenager about respect and trust.

 

Happy Trails!

[Marblehead]

 

But I would also submit to not judge the Buddha solely by VH's posts.

 

Well, to let you in on a little secret of mine, I actually admired the Buddha when I read about him many years ago. But don't tell anyone, Okay? This is our little secret.

 

But I won't talk about him here as I have much to say about Lao Tzu.

 

Happy Trails!

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

 

The reason he gets exasperated at times with the counter-arguments from people here is that he HAS practiced with the dedication of a Pro Athlete. He's Been there. It's like Magic Johnson arguing with ME about Basketball and what it's REALLY LIKE and takes to be a Pro Basketball Player in the middle of a game.

 

I don't think so. There's a lot of words that he posts, but precious little wisdom. I'm sorry, but just because someone has had (or claims to have had) his buns on a zafu for any period of time does not make him a 'pro'. Nor does the particular guru or Rinpoche he follows automatically accord him any merit. I actually think that being born into, and living in Hindu Guru World for his many years gave rise to a sense of superiority and gave him blind spots that he doesn't even know exist, and even thinks that he doesn't have them (e.g., his egotism). An essential part of any spiritual path consists of diminishing the ego. V is oblivious to the size of his ego. He loves to toot his own horn and drop all the mystical experiences and years of spiritual solitude, etc., which I think are exaggerated (but of course don't know for sure). It's the reason he's run crosswise to so many of the members of this forum. I don't find much wisdom in his posts, rather, I find someone who wants to show off he knows all these abstruse spiritual concepts and can hold forth like a philosopher. Personally, I wouldn't ask nor take his advice on any spiritual matter. He may be a pro 'seeker', but that does not make him a master of anything.

Edited October 4, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Marblehead]

It is reported that Lao Tzu said:

 

"To know you don't know is best.

Not to know you don't know is a flaw.

Therefore, the Sage's not being flawed

Stems from his recognizing a flaw as a flaw.

Therefore, he is flawless."

 

And I think that this is about as close to a truth as one can get.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji,

 

I submit the Buddha knows nothing as to how the cosmos works. You claim he understood Einstein's work. Your statements indicate you know nothing. Here is why.

 

Your obviously not a student of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. Your probably an avid stand by or internet listener. He believes, has seen, and has done things that you think are mythical including manifesting a terma from a dream realm into the physical realm plus all his real visions and the science of his different practices that engender miraculous outcomes, well really there is a metaphysics to it. How can you be a student of someone who is a Buddhist and not hold to the basic tenets of the different schools of Buddhism?

 

I asked for an explanation of general and special relativity and all I get was "dependent origination" as a lame argument.

 

ralis

 

I actually took an example from his findings and put it into context, but you probably didn't read it. I won't repeat it for you because I think it's a waste of time.

 

I think that your absurd, finding Taoist techniques to support your no-limit poker abilities is quite contrary to anything spiritual. I don't think you've sat for one minute and tried to meditate on the nature of your own mind.

 

 

 

I was there in SF on Cole St. in 1975; what a time.

 

love, Mark

 

I had a friend that lived on Cole. I used to hang out there in the upper Haight for a while as a kid, and used to skateboard all over the city from the 9th ave run up the top of the Parnasus 6 line all the way to Embarcadero.

 

 

San Francisco is a town to really enjoy! I remember when I was 15 I found 410 dollars in cash on Haight St. The next day I spent all of it, some pot, some tapes and a new tape player!! Wooo hooo!

[Tao99]

I think that your absurd, finding Taoist techniques to support your no-limit poker abilities is quite contrary to anything spiritual. I don't think you've sat for one minute and tried to meditate on the nature of your own mind.

 

Oh boohoo. There you go again making a big budda boogie over nothing. It's called freedom #$%$%$%$ and no cry babyin buddhist or otherwise is going to step on it. Its just a adult game scaredy cat. And a skill game at that. Do you bitch and moan when stock players pick a winner? When tiger woods wins his skill game and gets paid millions for doing so? no difference and big deal. You are just bottom feeding to find a reason to criticize ralis. I actuallt thought it was a good idea, and something probably could be learned by reading the art of war as it applies to poker. Wippdedipdedo.

[Vajrahridaya]

Wippdedipdedo.

 

Gambling is a no-no in any form of Buddhism. Tiger Woods and playing a sport well enough to get paid is not gambling.

 

Sure, poker takes skill, but it's a game that when going to the table is filled with nothing but shady people, no matter where you go. Unless your a kid playing innocently just for fun.

[Tao99]

 

Alcohol, just like food works on the body chemicals and makes for a different experience of the body. So it's part of the play and the fun.

 

 

Gambling is a no-no in any form of Buddhism. Tiger Woods and playing a sport well enough to get paid is not gambling.

 

Sure, poker takes skill, but it's a game that when going to the table is filled with nothing but shady people, no matter where you go. Unless your a kid playing innocently just for fun.

 

Now you really given your self serving agenda away. Alcohol is no-no in any form of Buddhism yet you called it "

"part of the play and the fun." That's about as un-buddhist as you can get and any monk will tell you so. And that's in the precepts which don't mention gambling. But you don't care because it suits your agenda and drug habit. You are being grossly inconsistent. Can you see that through the fog of your projections and prejudices?

 

PS they get paid totally based on performance silly. Now you are just making stuff up to serve your agenda.

 

PSS What does "shady people" even mean? dont pay there taxes? dont know DO? lol Christ you are so judgmental about things you know nothing about.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Tao99

[Vajrahridaya]

Now you really given your self serving agenda away. Alcohol is no-no in any form of Buddhism

 

Actually it's not forbidden in Dzogchen. So, you are wrong.

 

We actually use it at ceremonies and we open beers and wine during Dzogchen celebrations or when Rinpoche is around. But, he drinks one glass of wine and sips it slowly for hours. Most people have a couple of beers or a couple of glasses of wine. It feels different around him. I don't expect you to believe any of this. I'm just stating facts... you can take them or leave them.

 

Gambling on the other hand.

 

 

PSS What does "shady people" even mean? dont pay there taxes? dont know DO? lol Christ you are so judgmental about things you know nothing about.

 

I know much more than you think. I know plenty about gambling and what it does to people first hand.

 

So, maybe it's a personal thing.

 

I also know lots and lots about shady people, having grown up going to Vegas every year with my father and also having spent a lot of my youth living in areas on the wrong side of the tracks.

[ralis]

Gambling is a no-no in any form of Buddhism. Tiger Woods and playing a sport well enough to get paid is not gambling.

 

Sure, poker takes skill, but it's a game that when going to the table is filled with nothing but shady people, no matter where you go. Unless your a kid playing innocently just for fun.

 

 

Poker is a no no and alcohol is not? Did the great god Buddha forbid it? Which sutta forbids poker?

 

In the Dzogchen teachings there are no required behaviors and it is up to the individual to decide what is right for them. Dzogchen is about unbounded freedom.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Poker is a no no and alcohol is not? Did the great god Buddha forbid it? Which sutta forbids poker?

 

ralis

 

Can't remember which texts talk about gambling.

 

But, in all my years having been around poker players and gamblers, I've never met a sweet and kind hearted one. I apologize if you are the exception to the rule. But, thus far you haven't really proven that you have much of a spiritual bone in your body. Other than stating that you've read some books and asked some questions here. You don't seem to have had any transcendent epiphanies that are the virtue of meditation. So for you to call my writings incoherent. Well... I guess I wasn't writing for you. So, why not just step off.

 

Again... if you are actually kind and warm hearted but a poker player at the same time and not a shady character? Than... I apologize for holding this sense about you ever since you started kind of bragging to me about it. If you are, then that's fine... I have compassion for you. If not... then that's not fine, but I have even more compassion for you. But, I don't think we should really hang out anymore.

 

Take care.

[ralis]

Can't remember which texts talk about gambling.

 

But, in all my years having been around poker players and gamblers, I've never met a sweet and kind hearted one. I apologize if you are the exception to the rule. But, thus far you haven't really proven that you have much of a spiritual bone in your body. Other than stating that you've read some books and asked some questions here. You don't seem to have had any transcendent epiphanies that are the virtue of meditation. So for you to call my writings incoherent. Well... I guess I wasn't writing for you. So, why not just step off.

 

 

Take care.

 

I never reveal what my spiritual path is. You make judgments about me based on incomplete info.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I never reveal what my spiritual path is. You make judgments about me based on incomplete info.

ralis

 

I do sincerely apologize if I am merely projecting my history and information gathered thus far about gamblers and poker players onto you without merit.

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

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.

 

I can't say I agree with the 'dependent arising' thing Sereneblue, I haven't read that book, that much is true. But it's all void in my opinion, Buddhists seem to like to quantify many supposed states with various words and phrases, and I do meditate, and words do not clearly ever reflect those states of mind. Frankly speaking I like Buddhism as much as I do Daoism. They have existed side by side, just like you mentioned, for many years now. They have been used to very good effect no matter the phrases used. 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, then I find it more than a little strange that someone western would try to create such a split in thinking(I don't mean you by the way). Binary: 0/1. Zero is nothing and one is something, one is void one is not void. I guess it's very 'which came first the chicken or the egg'.

 

You know if were really going to go down the 'terms of use' path we would have to differentiate the forms of Buddhism, Indian Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Chan Buddhism and Zen. Then we would have to look at subdivisions, and within that all the different phrases used, and what we think is the true meaning, but we cannot get to the real meaning unless we do the practice, and even when we have experienced the true realization, we could never really express it in words. The Dalai Lama is the figurehead for Tibetan Buddhism, one type, and yes it should all be the same, but that's not quite the way it is. I believe practice is all, the rest, including my own words, is just talk.

 

I don't take offence by your reply, no problem. we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

I will say one thing in general though, this whole argument is void

[Marblehead]

Just thinking.

 

It amazes me how much Buddhism is being talked about here in this thread titled "Why Taoism is Different".

 

I guess the Buddhists just got lonely because the discussion in the thread "What Makes Buddhism Different" died.

 

Beliefs are funny animals. We each have our favorite pet. We stroke it, we love it, we caress it, we reach for it for comfort, we reach desperately when we are troubled. And because it serves us so well we are willing to fight in its defense.

 

Yes, even I, who is supposed to be beyond that sort of stuff fall into that category. Even Atheists do. Now I think that that is truely amazing!

 

It is always fatal when we compare one to an other because our beliefs are a part of each of us and when someone attacks our beliefs they are in fact attacking us. Therefore it is very understandable that most people will revolt against any attack or even a comparison.

 

Although I believe that this is my Taoist belief speaking it is really my ego speaking, saying, "Don't tread on me!".

 

And I think it is sad in that, as a matter of fact, Taoism and Buddhism have so much in common but yet we, for some reason, seem to almost always concentrate on the differences.

 

I think that this can be shown to be true if we view some of the recent threads where the two belief systems were discussed in the same thread. I think that whenever these arguements arise it is because we are completely immerse in the Manifest and we have thrown our Mystery (spirituality) out the window.

 

I personally consider this to be a problem. I don't know if there is a resolution to this problem that is acceptable to all. I do think though, that if we realize that every time we attack a persons belief system we are in fact attacking the individual and then ask ourself how we would feel if someone came up and started attacking person we might not get in so many arguements.

 

We need to talk about Taoism because this board is titled "The Tao Bums". I think that this is a given. I think also that it is only natural that Buddhism also be discussed because there are many Taoist who hold also to many of the Buddhist teachings.

 

But we will naturally discriminate and polarize. That is the way our brain works. So I suggest that we all remain mindful of the fact that whenever we say something negative about any other belief system we are in fact instigating an arguement. Arguements rarely end with positive results. Rather, I think, they end in further discrimination and polarization. That is not what this board is about. It is about bring the members closer together and aiding each other in gaining an understanding of life in the 'real world' and being more able to deal with our everyday problems.

 

Have I said enough for now? I think I have.

 

Happy Trails!

[Nanashi]

Marblehead: Nice post; it is amusing what we choose to defend, and how we defend it.

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

Fair point. It's not Buddhist chat. And all the other stuff too.