Siliconvalley1

We started a discussion to discuss the differences and similarities between Advaita and Buddhism and the discussion also paved way for differences between Taoism and Buddhism. Some of the claims made by our Buddhist brothers are these: - Tao Te Ching is the most mis-translated work ever. I asked Thusness once to look through about 100 Tao Te Ching sample English translations of Chapter 1, and he said only 1 or 2 can make it, most just seem silly and off the mark. - According to Lao Tzu, the greatest calamity is in having a body, thus he teaches the way of extinguishing the body to attain the realm of wu or non-being. Moreover, the greatest cause that burdens the body is in having knowledge, thus he teaches the way of abandoning knowledge to enter the realm of hsu[v] or emptiness. These teachings are similar to those of the vehicles of `Sraavakas and Pratyekabuddhas. He is like a Pratyekabuddha because he having lived in the time before Buddhism came to China, realized the truth of non-being by contemplating the changing nature of the world. Judging from the fact that he regards emptiness, non-being, and tzu-jan[w] or spontaneity as the final principles, his teachings are heterodox. But judging from the facts that his heart was full of compassion for the salvation of the world and that he attained the realm in which man and heaven mutually penetrate each other and in which being and non-being mutually reflect each other, he is also like a Bodhisattva. From the viewpoint of experience or skillful means, he was really (a Bodhisattva) appearing in the form of Brahmaa in order to teach the world. From the viewpoint of reality, he was the one who had attained the samaadhi of emptiness through pure living according to the vehicles of men and heaven. - Also, this idea that Hinduism and Buddhism is included in the Tao is something akin to a view that everything is one. No everything is connected. Buddhism is a path out of Samsara, out of the Tao. Hinduism is a path within Samsara, so one with the Tao. - Brahman, Tao, God, these are all samsaric concepts. We have very intensely deep attachment to these concepts that exist since beginningless time. Freedom from Samsara is much harder than most paths make it out to be. Though the Buddha said his Dharma is so simple a kid could understand it, but he said, "Could" understand it, not "would" understand it. - I have seen the Tao directly, and then I transcended it. Not permanently, but I have that direct experiencing. The Tao is a cosmic essence, sorry this also is dependently originated and without inherent existence. I realized it was a mistaken interpretation of mystic experience and moved on. . So what really is the use of Taosim? . A stop gap to get to the Buddhist teachings? Does it help on the way? . Or are we good directly jumping to the "correct" teaching? . Is there is a separate audience for these teachings - like a more qualified one for Buddhism? . Is Tao a concept that is unneeded and the cause of not reaching a state of ultimate non-duality? . Or, are we really misinterpreting the Tao and Taosim? These can be discussed in the Advaita thread but makes more sense to have a separate one with focus on the Tao.

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Life_of_...Experiences.htm

Experiences differ but from what is generally observed during a real awakening and the seriousness with which you pose this question here... it seems to be an energetic imbalance.

magic or not, I dunno but chaos...here it is

Just to clarify, the above are NOT my views. I only summarized what I read on three other threads and I did that because I didn't agree with a lot of that. There were some PMs that expressed surprise as to why I would say such a thing... Naaw...I didn't I only collated what was stated elsewhere..

Yup! Straight into the mouth that yaps non-stop ...DO DO DO DO

How I wish all understood that it is not every person's goal to "escape from a sorrow-filled samsara" and attain some sort of liberation from birth and death! Why do we need to apply this litmus test to every little thing? Query: Any feedback on what happens with excessive farting? Reply: Farting is good to release pent up emotions but it is a limited path and won't take you very far. It is good to spread some fragrance and may be even reduce the effects of global warming, but it won't liberate you from the labyrinth of birth and death. It just is not that subtle and it is not dependently originated. Also, the number of Realized Masters on this sonorous and fragrant path are close to nil compared to another complete path

Hudun!! Long time... hello

Interesting.... thank you all ... Some benefits the practice claims to grant are (ignore the grammar and stuff ) 1. Shield of your self from all physical and metaphysics attack 2. Do not Hurt or injure if hit by sharp weapon (when occurence correctness attacked by enemy). 3. Healing all disease of metaphysics and physical. 4. Cure barreness or weaken lust. 5. Increase your Authority of and fascination. 6. Increase your career. 7. Can ommunications and control khodam or Jin if you will. 8. Can bounce enemy attack before touching your self. 9. Can borrow miracle of others. 10. Can lock others attack or science. 11. Fencing your self, others, house / good and chattel and company. 12. Real Key make patrimony (Fill Keris, Dagger , Knife, Samurai, Stone Jewel, enamoured oil and water contain) 13. No abstention, peripheral effect and also of kontradiktif with other science during that other science non black science, even he will coalesce and become solidly. In this case only science which source of from God, can unite, usually to science which source which being or object, the science will disappear. 14. And other benefit you can get after practice.. Not sure any one achieved all this?

Naaw.. I don't think so S Denty wrote - longer posts, - more frequently, - replied to all that didn't agree with him and not only to those posts which he thought were easy to respond to and - wrote something new in every post without sounding too much like a broken record ... It would be fun to have a - I am better than you - or - mine is better than yours - debate between the two though... Its amazing to see how similar the two are ... ROFL

No replies... so no one familiar with this one? Its rather expensive Is tridaya same as Tenaga Dalam Illahi? There seem to be various versions and Indonesian system but nothing clear that explains what this system is about: Magic, Tantra, Qigong, Hard martial art ... Any one trained in either of these two? It was interesting as a practiotioner mentioned this to be Indonesian Yoga ... Some sell this as a technique, some as a get-and-forget attunement (in 3 levels) ... not sure what this is about...

The word Hindu came from the Sanskrit Sindhu, coined by Persians to refer to Sindu valley civilization. I did point out earlier than Hinduism is not exclusively Advaita or Dvaita or Shaiva or Shakta, but got carried away into using the same term incorrectly with growing threads. While not technically correct to the core, most religions or isms that come under Hinduism are referred to as a part of Sanatana Vaidika Dharma tracing their thoughts to the Veda in some way. They are all theistic. The exception would be the Buddhists and their influential predecessors the Jains. So, in spite of being technically incorrect, the popular notion is that Hinduism solely represents the vedic or the theistic group and not the other two. This is rather incorrect as atheism has its echo in certain portions of the veda as well. In the current modern day usage, "Indian" is not equal to "Hindu" and this is stated in the so-called secular Indian constitution.

Well, some agree, others don't ... and this inclusiviness was rather a changing phenomenon along the historical timeline.

I agree you have not stated anything to that effect. I was just making a point as the inability to look into "other realms" has been pointed out by "others" as a serious disability and as the key to identify the usefulness of not of a teaching or a religion. I thought it was relevant, as you seemed to think of Hindu deities as "real" and Hindus as insanely attached to them while "all" the Buddhists were swimming in the enlightened sea of DO If such a baseless assertion was not what was intended in your earlier post, then we have nothing to discuss. I think I am sick as well of trying to explain why DO does not mean anything to a Hindu and why the lack of a fanatic assertion of DO does not make it a lower or incomplete path. Different - may be... incomplete or inferior ..... duh Also, I explained earlier what Hindu deities represent. So how are they different from dhammapalas, or yidams or dhyani buddhas? The approach, ritualistic offerings made, way of propitiation through offering of sixteen articles are all concepts borrowed from Hindu culture. But, while retaining the cultural aspects, Buddhists did want not to be identified as "Hindu" and they thus proclaimed these practices to be different than Hindu practices. Someone like VH will probably point repeatedly to lack of essence (was it vanilla?) as the key differentiation, but that explanation is simply indicative of a forced attempt to appear different or distinct. And there are historical or cultural reasons for that. So, there really is not much difference between Hindu and Buddhist deities, in spite of what the Buddhists may try to project. The Hindu and Buddhist religions, as they are today, are the result of much more social & cultural exchanges than philosophical. I think failing to trace the former will render the study of the latter deficient. If you think otherwise, please explain why? Sure, is there a new Pali Sutta unearthed that says Buddha recommended these? And by the way my name is Vivek, the one you referred to is my current teacher

I choose not to respond to DO and your attachment to it as we have done that before on other threads and I have clarified that it is really of no importance to me. You again miss my point. You and your friend, in the past have made comments on how Hindu Gods are fighting, funny, selfish etc. based on the myths and symbols. What I was trying to say was that such myths or representations are not unique to Hinduism but seen in various other religions, especially in Buddhism which is greatly influenced in many respects by Hindu culture. So, it would be ridiculous to see every aspect of Buddhism to be symbolic and signifying the metaphysical aspect - while ridiculing similar symbolism in other cultures. That was the first point I was trying to make. There needs to be a common, unbiased attitude while explaining related phenomena. Second, going by these stories blindly - such as the one where Buddha liberated Shiva or something - to be TRUE and quoting such myths to prove the superiority of Buddhism over other religions is laughable at most. We cannot hide behind expressions such as "other realms" or "cosmic spaceship travels" to explain incoherency that has been clearly exhibited in your previous post and the current one. You have not answered any of my questions with anything faintly sensible. This is not ad hom..just a flat observation. Intent of the post is really clear - those living in a glass house cannot throw stones at others, irrespective of whether the stone is dependently originated

Cricketty-rise, awesome and really unique Avatar

You are certainly not and I am not saying you are .... Like I said, violence can be at various levels - verbal, intellectual, visual or physical. None of these are justified, especially for a Buddhist. Moreover, lets say there is a tantra, for example the chapter of Prasannatara - there are 6 stories. How can you take one of them to be literally true and others as merely symbolic? There has to be a much more scientific, wholesome and rational approach in analyzing Mythology and lack of historical perspective and relevant study cannot be substituted by selective interpetation or boisterous claims of inner revelation.

Well, one thing you accept is that Buddhists have their conversion tactics as well .. probably the bloodiness is symbolic and less literal than some others that Buddhists like to frequently criticize. But, it is rather convenient to accept what suits one's image as "true" in one or more "cosmic realms" and reject the other as "metaphors". But historically there is sufficient documentation to show that the violence was hardly limited to such metaphorical displays. Also, some older quotes of yours where you insisted there is truth in many of the Buddhist versions of such stories. Again, selective interpretation to back one's belief system. It may not be unacceptable but is at same time not reasonable either. Also, it is quite strange that you take these gory tales and representations in Buddhist tantras as symbolic and tools for metaphysical vizualisation, but don't apply the same logic to explain deities and representations in other religions. So why point a finger when Buddhism is filled with such takes as well? I can, apart from the instances of Buddhist vs Hindu deities I showed earlier, list instances of fights between two Bodhisattvas or yidams as well, if need be. So, is it not better to study, understand and think with an open mind before passing baseless judgments? Just one of the example of many such instances ...

Disclaimer on the said website and certainly not without a reason ...

I am not sure that's true... I have been vegetarian, my whole family has been for generations and every other person I knew as a child was vegetarian. They ate no eggs, onions, garlic - leave alone meat. Most of the elders in my family lived till 100 and had perfect health. I doubt they took special care of their diet and they just ate normally. The traditional Indian food probably balances the requirements. I am in pretty good health myself (touch wood ), and all I do is take a vitamin and a protein supplement - and only for the last 2 years. I eat no eggs, but milk is a part of my diet. Vegetariansim probably does not work when it is forced and not natural. I know not what it is not be a vegetarian.

I am not sure what the Hindu Gods are 'real' really means here. There is a domain of Maya which is characterized by Names and Forms and all Hindu deities - called Saguna Brahman - fall within this domain of names and forms. They are 'real' in the Vyavaharika or the lower domain and not ultimately in Pramarthika domain where the names and forms ascribed to one 'real' Brahman wear off. Brahman is described as without names and forms or attributes. But, for the benefit of someone whose mind is unable to comprehend this lofty a principle which is there but 'almost' not there, there are preliminary practices including deities, mantras etc. It is stated clearly: sadhakanam hitarthaya brahmano roopakalpana - the names and forms - which also means the associated myths - are 'created' or 'imagined' for the sake of easy contemplation and these are tools which are dispensed off gradually. This is not really different from the concept of yidams which clearly is borrowed from the Hindu concept of deities. So these Hindu deities are no more "real" or "unreal" than any Buddhist deity. However, in an ultimate sense they are 'real' as the the Supreme Essence or Brahman who really is what these deities represent - is Existent to a Hindu. Replace Brahman by Shunyata and you get the Yidam part. However, they are treated as 'real' while actually using them as tools and some go overboard with this attachment and these kinds really have no big enlightenment goals. But there are similar examples on the Buddhist side as well where Masters have criticized Yidam attachments. Moreover, scriptures on the Hindu side are clear that liberation cannot be attained by worshiping deities as worship and adoration can grant material gains, and when used without petty desires, merit - so they are really tools and nothing more. But is this higher truth taught repeatedly while one is still using these tools - yes, subtly but not repeatedly like to a Vedantin as this could lead to ineffective use of the tool by the novice regarding it as inferior, unreal or something you need to abandon. Shunyata+Karuna is really the seed of Vajrayanic deities and this is hardly different from the concept of Saguna Brahman. And whether or not Brahman is Shunyata is not very relevant at this point. Also, while later Buddhists rejected Buddhist deities as 'stories', that was not apparently the case earlier. There are ruins of various vihars with shrines dedicated to Tara, Vajrasattva etc. which are seen till today. Deities were actively worshipped by Mantrayana and Tantrayana followers in these shrines. The Hindu view of deity seems to be grossly misreprsented by Buddhists and it is not without a reason as this was the group that they were trying to fight and refute. But yes, the concept of Buddhist and Hindu deities are not at all that different. And it is exactly this reason why some non-vajrayana Buddhists have issues with Vajrayana deity practices. I am not sure what you mean by 'Transformation' here. Generally the qualities we like in ourselves are what one ascribes to the Brahman, the formless - such as compassion, beauty, valor etc. - and deities are derived out of such conceptualization. With sincere practice, one is able to attain oneness with the worshiped form, in the sense, materialize these qualities within oneself and some other super-human qualities sometimes, mostly as by-products of their practice. This may be called a transformation? And there is possession, similar to the way a Vajrasaraswati or a Jvalanala is used in Vajrayana where the vajracharya is possessed by a deity to accomplish some goals such as oracle etc. There are similar practices in Hinduism but not sure if that can be called transformation. Again, not all Buddhists take these to be stories, we have Vajrahridaya for example who stated that Shiva was actually liberated by Buddha and my refusal to accept this as nothing more than sectist Buddhist symbolism or story was interpreted again by him as my inability to look into other "cosmic" realms. So are these stories of bloody battle between Hindu and Buddhist deities merely stories to you in "all" realms or is there a selective (convenient usually) acceptance of truth in them? May be I can reply better to your question based on your stand of yidams, dharmapalas, herukas and other vajrayanic deities.