Apech

Hi seth,

I'm going to try to answer your OP (rather than tell you you asked the wrong question!).

I studied Buddhist philosophy about ten years ago and this is from memory and also I will just say how I understand it in my own terms (i.e simple English).

The whole philosophical journey starts with asking whether or not anything exists which is fundamentally real in and of itself. In other words is there anything, object, idea or essence which does not depend on anything else to exist, is permanent and is wholly itself (i.e. has not parts). If there is - then it has a self.

Its fairly easy to look round the observable world and see that there isn't anything like this. Just ask yourself about the objects in the room where you are sitting one by one, was it brought about by some process external to itself? will it last forever? is it made of parts? the answer to all three is always yes. So no ordinary objects have a 'self'. Having done this then turn the spotlight on the thoughts and ideas in your mind and you will similarly see that they arise dependent on causes, have a finite lifetime and can be broken down into parts - although it is slightly harder to see than with objects this is still the case. Lastly turn the spotlight on yourself. How did you arise? Will you live for ever? Do you have parts? And you will see just like everything else you have no self.

In essence this is the Rantong view. Everything is empty of self. And that's it. Obviously it has huge ramifications but in itself it is as simple as that.

Some people's reaction to this is to suggest either that as things appear to exist then there must be some eternal essence underpinning them - even though those things in themselves have no self - the essence does have a self. This is Eternalism. otherwise some people go the other way and say because nothing has a self then everything is meaningless and there is just a complete absence of anything. This is Nihilism. The Rantong view refutes both of these positions although it holds resolutely to the view of emptiness of self and refuses to accept the underlying essence of Eternalists or the complete absence of the Nihilists.

The 'problem' arises then in examining what are viewed as the positive qualities of Buddhahood, or the enlightened mind. For instance the enlightened mind is compassionate. From where does compassion arise? Same for generosity, patience and so on. Where do these qualities come from? Is the compassion of the enlightened mind actually real? the Zhentong school would say yes. They would say that although the Rantong view is correct in that nothing has a self, in fact Buddha-nature is a real existent and the origin of the positive qualities of the enlightened mind and Buddhahood. In this case the Zhentong Buddhists say that everything is 'empty of other', that is empty of anything other than Buddha-nature itself.

So Rantong = empty of self

Zhentong = empty of other

The Rantong Buddhist would say oh this is just reintroducing the self when we got rid of it. But the Zhentong Buddhists would say if you practice any kind of tantra then you are already implicitly accepting the Zhentong view (because of the yiddam).

In the end these are philosophical views which are not the same as inner realization - following which there will be no conflict at all.

This is my go at answering your questions. Hope it helps. I'm sure if I got something fundamentally wrong I will be corrected by our 'real' Buddhists.

Yeah, maybe one day the Jews and Arabs will get along peacefully.

They did before the state of Israel was created there are many testimonies to this effect that I have seen on TV documentaries about the history of the Middle East.

But I have to say you are right to be cynical.

As I say, I like to dream nice dreams.

Although from what I read there was also a lot of rivalry and it wasn't always the friendly kind. I agree that generally all these diverse (or really not all that diverse perhaps) views coexist in modern China, perhaps because nobody takes any of them very seriously. Materialism is huge in China right now. Again that's based on the news reports I watch and read. If someone in China wants to contradict me, please do. I'd love to hear various different opinions.

Ah well, I still like to dream that some people somewhere can have different views and yet co-exist and inspire each other. Maybe not in ancient China, maybe only in the distant future. But I am dreamer.

Welcome to TTBs.

A.

Hi Pritesh,

Welcome .. look forward to your ideas!

A.

I think certain surviving Taoist lineages might actually reach the same state as realized in Dzogchen/Mahamudra? I've said many times that it's probably the most intermingle-able with Buddhism. As it already has done so.

Maybe one of the impressive things about Taoism and Buddhism is that in China they managed to co-exist and inspire each other. I'm not a scholar or Chinese history so I am sure someone can pop up and point out the times they fought each other - but in the end we have Chan and books like the Golden Flower which came out of the soup of Taoism and Buddhism.

Right, at this point the only way to talk about Buddhanature is through paradox, revealing it's middle point access between dichotomous thinking.

Isn't a dichotomous a giant extinct amphibian? Some of them had two brains, one in their head and one in their tail. So the middle point access will be somewhere round their tummy button, I suppose.

You need the 6 P's of life my friend!

 

Prior

Planning

Prevents

Piss

Poor

Performance

 

(I got that from my hilarious/crazy uncle)

Well thanks!

Mods have limited access to the high level stuff though.

I am deleting 10/12 a day and I know Mal and others are too. We are being targeted at the moment and some of the forum tools to prevent this don't work as well as they should.

Please be patient it tends to come in phases and should soon die down.

My second wife is a writer and journalist. I know for certain she would have corrected my use of insure. She is as close to unimpeachable as anyone I ever met. I doubt anyone on this forum could match wits with her.

How many wives do you have? (and please no cheating by counting concubines).

I tried to read a Graham Hancock book once ...

So why this need for a church? Everyone wants to start their own church. Why is this?

 

Can't we think for ourselves? Can't we collect information, determine its validity, and make our own choices? Do we need someone else telling us what we should believe and what we should not believe?

 

Yes, I have heard of the claim that West makes concerning the Sphinx. Regretfully he has added about 6,000 years on to what has been considered by others.

The sphinx is constructed on what is probably a natural mound or outcrop of rock - one which was probably sacred fro a long time before dynastic Egypt - the rain erosion is not so strange.

Fascinating! Thanks.

I am going to be examining a much wider variety of topics soon, so I think you are all going to be surprised at the diversity and subjects of future topics.

Well you've started 73 topics so far and apart from one on Eminem being 'sick' they all seem to be more or less on the same theme.

You can see that Ralis and Marblehead have great stamina in challenging your point of view but that's about the only positive conclusion one can make.

I have defended your right to hold these ideas in the face of some hostility in the past but the reason they got moved to off topic was the endless repeating of similar themes. How about just one thread on this?

I4L,

This is getting tiresome ... I know its off topic but how many threads like this are we going to get?

A.

(not as mod but just me)

How much of the discussions on this site is really daoist?

One of the charms with having everything thrown in the same bag is that the overall atmosphere becomes grounded. There are already sites covering philosophical discursion; the practical part is what should be lifted up.

 

 

Mandrake

Good point ... many of the threads on Taoist Discussion are about whatever comes into people's heads or catches their interest. There's always Off Topic of course but a lot of people don't seem to ever look there. I like the random nature of some of the threads and also the way the discussion ranges about ... one of the best things about TTBs.

Maybe since the specialist sub-forums are based round texts like TTC we could have something on certain sutras and teachings ... e.g. Diamond Sutra, mind training, abhidharma ????? That could work I think but someone would have to organize it.

He got you there Marbles!

Since you ask I don't think the physical world is limited ... the limits are in our minds and expectations about what is possible.

 

Apech,

 

 

 

I think there is some truth to a basic polarity existing, or a seeming one (in the case of day/night for example...they aren't polar opposites, it's just the movement of the earth and the apparent motion and absence of the sun. Actual day and night are illusory and just concepts). Most of the world appears as dual, but in fact it is not...so we already begin with a false conceptual map of nature by using yin and yang.

 

I begin to get really hung up on the 8 trigrams. They are supposed to be 8 powers in nature...but they don't seem equal to me, and definitely not a basis for the rest of creation. Sky, lake, fire, thunder, wind, water, mountain, earth. Sky and earth seem equal and worthy. But a lake? Thunder? Why not a river? Why not lightning, or a storm in general? What about volcanoes? The way I see it, these 8 trigrams don't make sense as the 8 primary forces of nature.

 

Then these powers are each equated to other things...in the case of "sky" there is: expansiveness, a father, summertime, creativity...so we begin to lump a lot of other aspects of our reality into categories which may be inaccurate, and not useful.

 

Then we combine two of these 8 powers and come up with a hexagram? Why? And more importantly, how does one know that by combining those two forces, whether the resulting explanation is accurate for those things? I understand there is a lot of explanation for each line and position within the hexagrams...so perhaps there is something to defining everything in terms of 64. But what use does it have in terms of numerology (for instance does hexagram 45's explanation actually relate to the energy of the number 45 itself? Will that explanation correlate to other times when the number 45 appears?). And why is everything based off of 8 powers anyway? From what I understand, most systems use 9 as the complete or final number.

 

So anyway, the way I see it, the entire book seems to be based on a shaky foundation.

 

 

Clearly its up to you how you approach this ... supposing you are going to study it all. If you are you need to start with why for instance three yang lines is sky/heaven i.e. what energy/power in nature it is an image of. Why lake? What is meant by lake ... what quality of lake is being alluded to ... etc. rather than assuming you already know what sky, lake , thunder and so on are. Its hard to explain but try to let the text speak to you without preconceptions. Your questions are good .. since you ask them you could get to an answer I think.

Sorry if this sounds either vague or mysterious but its late here and I'm going to bed now ...

I don't pretend to understand the I Ching properly ... although I do consult it from time to time. To me it is interesting on all sorts of levels. If you accept that energy has a basic polarity (yin/Yang) ... then you can look at how complex levels of reality can develop from the interaction of this duality ... from the pairs, trigrams to the hexagrams ... most of the Taoist alchemical texts seem to draw on symbolism from the I Ching so if you are interested in cultivation then its probably a great help if not essential to have a basic knowledge of it. But I guess if you feel no connection to it ... then give it a miss ... there are other things to do.

Okay. I'm old. But not THAT old.

Either 6000 or 60,000,000 depending on philosophy?

Hello Apech,

 

In a way spirituality is superstitious. Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hiduism, etc. all are superstitious, yet under the surface there is something deeper. People here me say, "life is about survival" and they immediately get this "Lord of the Flies", "Apocalypse Now" type of idea in their head, when that's not exactly what I'm talking about. Survival is more than just simply trying to live as long as you can. The mother lion who confront the hyenas to defend her cub is an example of survival on a deeper level. The fact is we are supposed to have a deep and fulfilling life, but the key is not found in enlightenment, salvation, or an altered state of consciousness, it's found in understanding that in this moment you are doing what you are intended to do, so long as you do what is beneficial for you and your loved ones. It's that simple.

 

This idea that life has to have some deep purpose or cause is just a way for us to behave in a decent way with one another. Moralism, spirituality, etc. are all tools for social conformity and by no means are they bad things, in fact I advocate the practice of Zen, but I also understand what it is at its root and that it is not necessary or required. One can go their entire life without hearing the word "Zen" yet in one instance understand exactly what it is. Dogma, conformity, and society have nothing to do with survival. They have no purpose within the realm of nature, because they are constructs that only exist within our head.

 

Breathe deep and listen to what the world is saying and I think more often than not you will understand the purpose and in understanding you will stop having to ask the question.

 

Aaron

If you mean by superstition the original sense of 'standing above' then I suppose religions are superstitious in that they suggest better ways of being. However the modern use of this word is about imputing a completely arbitrary relation between a cause and an effect.

I am not a religious person in the usual sense and I don't have much time for priests or popes (mullahs?) etc because the try to wrap up the truth in some kind of package. But I would say the core spiritual values of most religions are valid ... i.e you can be a better person, live a better life ,,, be kinder, more loving and so on ... this is not survival ... its about being free to express yourself in a genuine way.

Does nature or the world have this purpose? Possibly not in itself ... but then on what does nature depend?

*** Mod Message ***

I am moving this to Off Topic where other similar threads reside.

An open plea to I4L ... one thread only please on your anti-Darwinism --- we do not need so many.

Thank you.

Apech for Mod Team

**** Message ends ****