Buddhism transcends the Tao

[Uncle Screwtape]

Edited June 2, 2009 by Uncle Screwtape

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited June 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[evZENy]

Can't have only one way.

Even for a single person is hard.

For humanity - as it changes, so do the ways.

For example Osho is right to say that many of the thousands years old meditations won't work for the modern human. Hence the need for new techniques, to which he contributed a lot.

 

In any case - Buddhism is the answer for some, but not all.

[Vajrahridaya]

Can't have only one way.

Even for a single person is hard.

For humanity - as it changes, so do the ways.

For example Osho is right to say that many of the thousands years old meditations won't work for the modern human. Hence the need for new techniques, to which he contributed a lot.

 

In any case - Buddhism is the answer for some, but not all.

 

Buddhism supposedly has something like 83,000 ways leading to the same end of suffering?

 

There is only one way to view the cosmos as it truly works. The cosmos works in a certain way, it's very deep and complex, thus one MUST understand interdependent origination to free oneself. There is no other way to completely free oneself. This one way does have many methods to it's realization though.

[Uncle Screwtape]

[Vajrahridaya]

[Uncle Screwtape]

In Buddhism, that's just a formless realm not to be considered an absolute. In Taoist view there is still a subtle reification of the non-conceptual. Cutting through still doesn't happen and the seed of potentiality is still not eradicated. That void of potentiality is exactly that seed, and must be seen through the view of interdependent origination.

 

There is no reification of the non-conceptual. Not ultimately. That is the point I am making. Taoism deals with this over and over again. You don't believe me but I assure you it is the case.

 

There is a place in Taoism for concepts and a place where concepts are abandoned.

 

Yes, holding paradox lightly... I am familiar with this through a lifetime of Hindu thought and meditative view and experience.

 

It isn't a paradox; not to Taoists anyway.

 

Like I said, I don't know much about Buddhism. When it comes to what it can do for a person I will bow to your greater knoweldge and take your word for it. But you are simply and demonstrably wrong in your assertions about Taoism; or, at least, the limits it has for you are not the limits it has for others. Just because you cannot see in it what you see in Buddhism that does not mean it is not there. After all, I find Buddhism limiting for me, but I would not for a moment imagine that is how Buddhism really is for everyone.

 

I can only really say again that the formless realm of Buddhism that is not considered to be one thing or another and is not named . . . that's Taoism too. Believe me or don't believe me. It really doesn't matter. I have quite enjoyed the discussion so far and that's what counts.

[WhiteTiger]

Buddhas don't escape, they cut through totally and see exactly how all things work. Buddhas turn Samsara into the experience of Nirvana through the power of their realization, thereby not rejecting anything, except deluded cognition, this is totally eradicated in a Buddhas mind stream.

 

But yes... the different religions lead to different stages of realization and it's all very personal. It all depends on what you want out of life.

 

I want the know directly the 4 noble truths.

 

The truth of suffering

The nature of suffering

The cessation of suffering

The way to the freedom from suffering

 

Which is the 8 fold noble path... starting with "Right View"

 

 

Interesting.

 

In your view, what do you think Taoist last or end stage of realization is?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I can only really say again that the formless realm of Buddhism that is not considered to be one thing or another and is not named . . . that's Taoism too. Believe me or don't believe me. It really doesn't matter. I have quite enjoyed the discussion so far and that's what counts.

 

That's my point exactly, there is no formless realm in Buddhism "that cannot be named" that is ultimate truth.

 

There is NO footing! Enlightenment is a realization of dependent origination, not an inherent quality-less eternalness beyond name, form, or time that all things actually are in whole. That is just not so in Buddhism. All that non-conceptualness is part of Samsara as well.

 

That too is dependently originated. karmas extends into the non-conceptual, into that which cannot be named.

 

Just thinking in terms of, "That which cannot be named" is a reflection of a reified experience beyond thought, name and form.

 

Interesting.

 

In your view, what do you think Taoist last or end stage of realization is?

 

A high level bliss realm or state of mind that feels one with an all.

 

The experience of an inherent essence of all things that allows for the sense of union or oneness.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[WhiteTiger]

A high level bliss realm or state of mind that feels one with an all.

 

The experience of an inherent essence of all things that allows for the sense of union or oneness.

 

What Taoist practices have you experienced?

[Vajrahridaya]

What Taoist practices have you experienced?

 

Not in this life, (past life yes) just a little Tai Chi and Kung Fu theory and practice. I've read most of the major texts and some lineage texts. I've done the I-Ching my entire life. Very good stuff there, but not ultimate teaching in my opinion, but very good teaching. The I-Ching is quite amazing with the Triagrams and predicting based upon personal energy flow, intention, subconscious linking with conscious, into the throw and it's reflective outcome reading. It's pretty amazing how all our energy connect on various levels. Very good. I have some really incredible stories about the I-Ching from personal experience that reveal it's credibility. My mom taught me it when I was very young and she has been doing it with me my entire life.

[WhiteTiger]

Not in this life, (past life yes) just a little Tai Chi and Kung Fu theory and practice.

 

If you have not tried both methods thoroughly and deep than how can you talk about one better then the other?

[Vajrahridaya]

If you have not tried both methods thoroughly and deep than how can you talk about one better then the other?

 

Because the view is different. So, I can talk sutra. View predicates experience, regardless of technique and practice. View will condition or de-condition experience dependently.

 

The view is different thus the outcome is different.

[WhiteTiger]

Because the view is different. So, I can talk sutra.

 

Whom said you couldn't?

 

Your doing a great job at promoting Buddhism.

It just seems your promoting Buddhism, for whatever reason, in a dualistic fashion.

 

Peace, Virtue,

Love WhiteTiger

Edited June 2, 2009 by WhiteTiger

[Uncle Screwtape]

Well, I did say that I don't know very much about Buddhism and that was revealed in my posts. But your insistence that Taoist ideas necessarily conclude in reification shows that you are at least as ignorant of my path as I am of yours.

 

Just thinking in terms of, "That which cannot be named" is a reflection of a reified experience beyond thought, name and form.

 

I have had to describe using words something that words cannot approach. (I did make that clear more than once.) As I said, I am thinking of it in those terms for the benefit of this discussion, but when it comes down to the experience, there is no thinking.

 

I respect your path and have no doubts that it is for you what you say it is, even though you do doubt that mine is what I say it is. (I'll live! ) I don't really see us movng on from here. While some might consider it discourteous that you would come to a Taoist forum to say Buddhism is better, I happen to think you're well intentioned; so I will just thank you and wish you all the best.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Uncle Screwtape

[Vajrahridaya]

Peace, Virtue,

Love WhiteTiger

 

Thanks White Tiger.

 

At this point I'm just enjoying seeing the clarity.

 

I'm gaining clarity from all this and I haven't written on the Dharma for quote some time so am enjoying the inspiration to write.

 

Seeming dualism is just that. This is a discussion venue, the seemingness of the duality through this venue is quite concrete.

 

I never said I was a Buddha, just a Buddhist.

 

 

 

 

 

But your insistence that Taoist ideas necessarily conclude in reification shows that you are at least as ignorant of my path as I am of yours.

I have had to describe using words something that words cannot approach. (I did make that clear more than once.) As I said, I am thinking of it in those terms for the benefit of this discussion, but when it comes down to the experience, there is no thinking.

 

 

That's my point, considering the ultimate experience something non-conceptual is a subtle attachment to a "state of mind beyond thought" and calling "it" absolute, or ultimate.

 

Tell me, does the Tao exist regardless of if your realization of it?

 

I do appreciate your best though...

 

May that boomerang back to you!

[Uncle Screwtape]

That's my point, considering the ultimate experience something non-conceptual is a subtle attachment to a "state of mind beyond thought" and calling "it" absolute, or ultimate.

 

But I have told you it is only considered or thought of or described as such for the benefit of talking about it, which is why the TTC famously comes with that caveat in the very first line. In experience, there is no attachment, subtle or otherwise. Thinking stops. As I said previously, all judgements and estimates of the source are suspended. There is no calling it one thing or another. And when one's attachment to names has been overcome, it really doesn't matter what you call it.

 

Tell me, does the Tao exist regardless of if your realization of it?

 

Nice question. I don't know the answer. I will think about it. What's the Buddhist view?

[Vajrahridaya]

But I have told you it is only considered or thought of or described as such for the benefit of talking about it, which is why the TTC famously comes with that caveat in the very first line. In experience, there is no attachment, subtle or otherwise. Thinking stops. As I said previously, all judgements and estimates of the source are suspended. There is no calling it one thing or another. And when one's attachment to names has been overcome, it really doesn't matter what you call it.

 

There is an attachment to a, "thinking stops".

 

Calling it a source also is a reification which means... it exists, or there is existence. This does not have to be a thought thing, but a subtle experience and a clinging to that experience as, "this is it".

Nice question. I don't know the answer. I will think about it. What's the Buddhist view?

 

The Buddhist view is that Nirvana does not exist, it is a realization of the non-abiding nature of the all, including "free from thought" formless experiencing.

[Uncle Screwtape]

There is an attachment to a, "thinking stops".

 

Calling it a source also is a reification which means... it exists, or there is existence. This does not have to be a thought thing, but a subtle experience and a clinging to that experience as, "this is it".

 

I will say this just one more time: it is given a name for the benefit of discussion. In the experience (and I use the word 'experience' because I am forced to use words on the Internet) there is no naming, no thinking, no . . . nothing. There is no reification or clinging or attachment, not even a subtle one. That's the point.

 

(I apologise for all the emphasis but it seems to be needed.)

Edited June 3, 2009 by Uncle Screwtape

[xabir2005]

Edited June 3, 2009 by xabir2005

[Meson]

Edited June 3, 2009 by Meson

[evZENy]

The title of the topic makes sense, only if you define TAO as something that can be transcended.

Most of us don't see it this way.

Hence no point to discuss.

 

As for Buddhism - a lovely view: http://home.att.net/~meditation/Buddhism.html

 

Na mo Amituofo!

Edited June 3, 2009 by evZENy

[Sunya]

Whom said you couldn't?

 

Your doing a great job at promoting Buddhism.

It just seems your promoting Buddhism, for whatever reason, in a dualistic fashion.

 

Peace, Virtue,

Love WhiteTiger

 

 

Buddhist non-duality will always be called dualitic by other "non-dual" traditions because there is no one-neess or merging with the all or identifying with everything, Buddhism still has individuality on a relative level.

 

If you have not tried both methods thoroughly and deep than how can you talk about one better then the other?

 

 

He is modest, he's done a lot and experienced a lot that he doesn't share. alchemy is a big thing in Taoism and he has had full kundalini awakening(s), so I feel that he is qualified to comment here.

 

 

I will say this just one more time: it is given a name for the benefit of discussion. In the experience (and I use the word 'experience' because I am forced to use words on the Internet) there is no naming, no thinking, no . . . nothing. There is no reification or clinging or attachment, not even a subtle one. That's the point.

 

(I apologise for all the emphasis but it seems to be needed.)

 

 

if you have no direction how do you know where to go? what if you're going forward and hit a tree? well there ya go! i think I made it. except theres so much more beyond the tree..

 

this is the problem with using vague poetry as your spiritual instruction,

[xabir2005]

Buddhist non-duality will always be called dualitic by other "non-dual" traditions because there is no one-neess or merging with the all or identifying with everything, Buddhism still has individuality on a relative level.

If non-dual simply means no subject/object division, then Buddhism is non-dualistic.

 

If non-dual means merging with Brahman or realising one's identity as Universal Brahman, then nope. And anyway that is more of monism than non-dualism.

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[Uncle Screwtape]

this is the problem with using vague poetry as your spiritual instruction,

 

It may be a problem for you, but not for me, nor for others I know. Not least of all because it is not to me 'vague poetry' but perfectly clear.

 

But how do I know where to go? That's the point. Ultimately, there is nowhere to go. I say 'ultimately' because there is a lot to do before then for me. I am more than happy to follow sign posts for now.