Who Is the Lord/God in the Tao Te Ching?

[nac]

So you only have intellectual understanding. Well, this is fine. Not everyone is ready for a teacher and they want to take the long way, that's really fine. I wish you blessings on your journey!

I have no understanding whatsoever!

 

PS. Sickening, isn't it? Of course, I'm not nearly there yet, if that makes you feel any better...

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

I have no understanding whatsoever!

 

Well, that should allow the possibility of a new dawn in your ideation.

[nac]

Well, that should allow the possibility of a new dawn in your ideation.

Sure it does. I still disagree at the moment, however.

[xabir2005]

1st Chinese Ch'an/Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma on the matter of teachers:

 

All know the Way, but few actually walk it.

 

If you don't find a teacher soon, you'll live this life in vain. It's true, you have the buddha-nature. But without the help of a teacher you'll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher's help.

If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn't need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you're so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you'll understand.

 

nac, mindstreams always remain individual. when we say nobody gets enlightened that means there is no longer a sense of I, or ego, but that doesn't mean that the mindstream does not exist individually. cessation as spoken about in the pali suttas means cessation of ignorance, cessation of the belief in an I, not disappearance entirely. so Buddhas still exist individually and act. there is no becoming one with the universe. union in Buddhism only goes as far as complete access to wisdom not merging with the universe and no longer existing individually

You must understand that though mindstreams are individual, it is nevertheless non-dual without subject/object duality.

 

There is no 'I' experiencing universe, there is just universe happening, univer-sing in dynamic manifestation.

 

Looking at the floor, there is no me looking at it, just floor.

 

The difference between this understanding/experience with that of the understanding of a universal substratum/consciousness is that those who hold on the view of cosmic consciousness holds the view of Pure Subjectivity while the experience of non-dual understood correctly is one of Pure Objectivity without Subject. Of course... even the objects are empty and dependently originated.

Edited August 14, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

1st Chinese Ch'an/Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma on the matter of teachers:

 

All know the Way, but few actually walk it.

 

If you don't find a teacher soon, you'll live this life in vain. It's true, you have the buddha-nature. But without the help of a teacher you'll never know it. Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher's help.

If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn't need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you're so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you'll understand.

The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas all around me are my teachers. There are no Mahayana temples in Kolkata.

 

You must understand that though mindstreams are individual, it is nevertheless non-dual without subject/object duality.

 

There is no 'I' experiencing universe, there is just universe happening, univer-sing in dynamic manifestation.

 

Looking at the floor, there is no me looking at it, just floor.

This.

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddhas and Bodhisattvas all around me are my teachers. There are no Mahayana temples in Kolkata.

This.

 

That's fabulous nac! I'm sure your doing just dandy... You seem quite open and humble.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[nac]

You seem quite open and humble.

Crazy, more like it. Meh. Blessings on your journey! (or whatever you Tibetans say)

[Sunya]

lol Vajra isn't Tibetan. he's an American born n' bred

 

here's an old picture of him that he probably wouldn't want anyone seeing, he was pretty drunk. usually nobody sees that sexy belly except his girlfriend

 

Edited August 14, 2009 by mikaelz

[nac]

lol Vajra isn't Tibetan. he's an American born n' bred

 

here's an old picture of him that he probably wouldn't want anyone seeing, he was pretty drunk. usually nobody sees that sexy belly except his girlfriend

 

Correction: Tibetan Buddhists

 

PS. Please excuse me if my statements in this thread seem to be inconsistent. These are supposed to represent different stages of insanity realization.

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Pietro]

I've done that whole heartedly. That's why I don't believe any experience to be the absolute Truth, but merely a revelation of dependent origination.

Good. So we finally agree on something.

It's corroborated by enlightened beings, those that have put lots of hard time towards meditation and contemplation without worldly distraction.

 

I find much of what Evangelical's say is based upon blind faith and the intensity of that faith originates the experience. Dependent origination. Many of my experiences are spoken about in every mystic branch of all spiritual traditions, it's just that I interpret them through the criticism of the Buddha, so I don't take them up as ultimate reality, just sign posts. As emptiness is not an experience it's the ultimate nature of experience or the quality of all experiences pointing to dependent origination, so it's an intuitive interpretation of experiencing of any sort. Still one can see directly the realms the Buddha speaks about, heaven realms, the 6 realms and the 31 planes and how they all link together and how the flow of all those states reflect meditation states from form to formless and from hell realms to heaven to formless realms.. how this is the macrocosm of my microcosm, but all inherently empty of intrinsic existence.

 

How interesting, I think you are right, faith can produce experience. Of course is a process that we can readily recognise when it happens in others. It is very hard to recognise in one's self. Mostly because the faith gets in the way.

 

So your personal experience is corroborated by the Dharma, The Sangha (not all the TB Sangha, I suppose ;-), but we are Taoists), and the Buddhas. While the Evangelical's experience is corroborated by the Bible, the Church (as the community) and the Christian's Saints. I am still having a hard time in seeing the difference. But I am sure you will explain me in your next, enlightening, post.

 

Why is it that if we are discussing, and I fail to convince you, and you fail to convince me. My failure to be convinced is due to my attachment to my view, while your failure to be convinced is due to your enlightened experience, and you being part of an enlightened group of people?

 

Because for me that's true, from my perspective based upon the limits or freedom of my experiencings. What are you trying to convince me of?

What are you trying to convince me of?

Just that there is an objective world.

Honestly not much.

 

I'm just talking my truth and people are calling me a failure from their limited perspective, when other people have an entirely different experience of my words. Your perspective originates dependent upon your view, based upon your interpretations of your experience, and so on and so forth, and is not objective.

 

Do you feel that people call you a failure if they deny your spiritual achievements?

 

In any case since

 

Nothing really exciting seems to be going on here between us.

we probably should stop.

 

Take care,

Pietro

[Sunya]

there is a clear difference between having visions of Christ which is based on faith and experiencing the world without concepts and delusions. it doesn't take faith to know the dharma, nor does it take memorization of scripture. it takes a powerful inquisitive logical mind, careful analysis, and deep meditative ability.

[nac]

"Subjective" and "objective" may not be entirely accurate descriptions of DO & phenomena, but I doubt that Buddhists disbelieve in objective truth in the conventional sense.

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Good. So we finally agree on something.

 

People who start jumping down my throat are generally coming from a perspective that doesn't reflect a wholistic view of interpretation.

 

How interesting, I think you are right, faith can produce experience. Of course is a process that we can readily recognise when it happens in others. It is very hard to recognise in one's self. Mostly because the faith gets in the way.

 

There are certain experiences that happen to one that are a reflection of objective application of dependent origination that are liberating and reflective of insight. They lead to translucence... Prajna, and not marigpa. Other religions reflect a certain capacity for wisdom that may be limited but part of the step up for a personal rate of evolution.

 

So your personal experience is corroborated by the Dharma, The Sangha (not all the TB Sangha, I suppose ;-), but we are Taoists), and the Buddhas. While the Evangelical's experience is corroborated by the Bible, the Church (as the community) and the Christian's Saints. I am still having a hard time in seeing the difference. But I am sure you will explain me in your next, enlightening, post.

 

Like I said above. Also, the wisdom gained shows a wholistic view but not a mis-apprehension of reality based upon a dogma. Rather one see's the relativity of it all and doesn't damn other's from other religions, but rather just sees the limitations and where it fits in the 31 realms chart of progression, which is also relative as everyone is interpreting individually and experientially these concepts in subtlety nuanced ways.

 

What are you trying to convince me of?

Just that there is an objective world.

 

Uh hu... and only a Buddha is truly objective about it. Which may come off as subjective to you, and that's your subjective interpretation.

 

Honestly not much.

Do you feel that people call you a failure if they deny your spiritual achievements?

 

I was just quoting literally what you or ralis said. Not a thing I feel. Of course, if I can't communicate dharma to anyone and bring anyone to the water of clarity. Then, I'd be quite the looser bodhisattva.

In any case since

we probably should stop.

 

Take care,

Pietro

 

Eh... it doesn't bother me really. I just don't need to bother my mom about this conversation. Though I might, but only because she is a devout Hindu and may need some convincing which I kind of want to get clear for her before she passes on. Though, she is in good hands regardless. She is on a path that will at least get her to Siddhaloka or a really good next birth.

 

 

"Subjective" and "objective" may not be entirely accurate descriptions of DO & phenomena, but I doubt that Buddhists disbelieve in objective truth in the conventional sense.

 

That's correct.

 

Correction: Tibetan Buddhists

 

PS. Please excuse me if my statements in this thread seem to be inconsistent. These are supposed to represent different stages of insanity realization.

 

LOLz to both you guys... yeah, yeah...

Edited August 14, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Vajrayana doesn't think that they are only in one's mind. They are realized aspects of our own potentiality for enlightenment. They are also ascended Masters who were at one point just like us walking the path of human Buddhism, or non-human versions of Buddhism and then ascended. I experience them as real as you and me, they just don't have physical bodies anymore, or they might again project a Nirmanakaya through the Sambhogakaya anchored in the Dharmakaya realization. Deepending on how open you are, they most certainly can grant wishes, as that's one of their powers.

 

Oh, poppycock.

 

The only ghost I believe in is Casper The Friendly Ghost.

 

Be well!

 

 

Buddha is not equal to Buddha Nature. Buddha nature is the potentiality for you to become enlightened, inherent to every individual.

 

Now see! There really is logical intelligence in Buddhism.

 

Be well!

 

 

Hey Nac!

 

lol you can't get away from doctrine.

 

Oh yes I can. Watch me!

 

Yes you can. But it will be difficult if you are not a philosophical Taoist.

 

Be well!

[Marblehead]

So what the hell did you guys do with my Lord, the God of Taoism?

 

Seems to me we need to find her and put her back on her throne.

 

The Valley Spirit never dies;

It is called the Mysterious Female.

The Mysterious Female is the gate

To the roots of Heaven and Earth.

 

(Sorry, although from the TTC, credit to the translator is not possible but acknowledged.)

 

Be well!

[nac]

Yes you can. But it will be difficult if you are not a philosophical Taoist.

Nope, I don't need to become a Taoist to do it either.

 

A lot of Tibetan Buddhists just talk like this all the time. You get used to it after a while. Join E-Sangha if you don't believe me. The moderators banned a Zen master for insisting that he didn't believe in literal rebirth. (I think they closed down the whole Soto Zen subforum for the same reason. I'm not sure, but it's bound to be something sneaky like that! )

 

So what the hell did you guys do with my Lord, the God of Taoism?

 

Seems to me we need to find her and put her back on her throne.

 

The Valley Spirit never dies;

It is called the Mysterious Female.

The Mysterious Female is the gate

To the roots of Heaven and Earth.

 

(Sorry, although from the TTC, credit to the translator is not possible but acknowledged.)

 

Be well!

Kill her! Sacrifice her to the devil!

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

Hi Nac,

 

Funny.

 

No, I won't be joining any Buddhist forums. I'll take your word for it.

 

Be well!

[nac]

No, I won't be joining any Buddhist forums.

That's probably for the best.

 

Although religious Taoism is usually way more superstitious than religious Buddhism IMHO. And in pre-modern times... well, ever heard of traditional Chinese remedy of bread baked in fresh human blood? Ah, never mind.

[Marblehead]

Although religious Taoism is usually way more superstitious than religious Buddhism IMHO.

 

Regretfully I have to agree with you on this point.

 

And in pre-modern times... well, ever heard of traditional Chinese remedy of bread baked in fresh human blood? Ah, never mind.

 

Yes, we will never-mind that.

 

Be well!

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh, poppycock.

 

The only ghost I believe in is Casper The Friendly Ghost.

 

 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Be well!

Hey Nac!

 

 

lol you can't get away from doctrine.

 

Oh yes I can. Watch me!

 

Yes you can. But it will be difficult if you are not a philosophical Taoist.

 

Be well!

 

The experience of being a Buddha is not confined by any system of explanation. But the best boat to that shore of Buddhahood is the boat built by a Buddha.

[nac]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Neither humans nor ghosts represent species in Buddhism. As long as you continue to perceive sentient beings like yourself wandering the earth in the condition of hungry ghosts, ghost-phenomena are arising before you. The realms must never be externally objectified! This is about layers of perception, not superficial scientific questions of psychic phenomena, life after death or the existence of bodiless species. How could I deny the very existence of hungry ghosts when the streets of Kolkata are full of them? Pretending they do not exist and trying to forget they're there are simply ignorance and self-delusion respectively. And since they exist for me, they indirectly exist for you too, even if you live in paradise.

 

Please do something about it. I'm trying.

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Neither humans nor ghosts represent species in Buddhism. As long as you continue to perceive sentient beings like yourself wandering the earth in the condition of hungry ghosts, ghost-phenomena are arising before you. The realms must never be externally objectified! This is about layers of perception, not superficial scientific questions of psychic phenomena, life after death or the existence of bodiless species. How could I deny the very existence of hungry ghosts when the streets of Kolkata are full of them? Pretending they do not exist is simply ignorance and self-delusion. And since they exist for me, they indirectly exist for you too, even if you live in paradise.

 

Please do something about it. I'm trying.

 

Hungry ghosts or pretas exist in a dimension of their own reality who perceive us as beings in a less dense dimension and they feed off our more dense energy emissions as in cravings being fulfilled. Their dimension is a dimension that is slightly more dense than ours. Talking about Preta's specifically. They are not merely just metaphors for psychological states. Though psychological states do lead to rebirth in those dimensions.

[steve]

Yes, Nagarjuna is credited with the expansion of what the Buddha taught. So it is considered the Buddha's emptiness. As Theravada does not equate dependent origination with a Self either or atta and anatta is a part of the Theravada doctrine. The Buddha did deny a universal essence that one can take refuge in, in the Pali Suttas.

 

Also concerning a universal self. It just seems sometimes that the experiential interpretation of the Tao is something similar to what the Buddha denied in that. Sometimes not.

 

So... there doesn't seem to be consensus of what the Tao actually is on an experiential level, as in what it's trying to name, as in how the beyond concepts is being equated in terms of ontological experience. I don't see that it's necessarily pointing to the same moon. Though I could be wrong because I'm not a Taoist scholar.

 

Ah but here's the thing, they both are always pointing to the same moon - there is only one moon.

The moon is the truth, the fingers that are pointing may do so from differing conditioning. That doesn't change the moon.

Don't get trapped in equating your intellectual exercises with reality.

[nac]

Hungry ghosts or pretas exist in a dimension of their own reality who perceive us as beings in a less dense dimension and they feed off our more dense energy emissions as in cravings being fulfilled. Their dimension is a dimension that is slightly more dense than ours. Talking about Preta's specifically. They are not merely just metaphors for psychological states. Though psychological states do lead to rebirth in those dimensions.

Vajrahridaya, I know for a fact that even the most esoteric of Tibetan Buddhists believe the realms should not be externally objectified. I've come across this teaching quite recently here. It's written by a Tibetan lama. Ask in E-Sangha if you're still not convinced. I've seen it there more times than I could count in every single school.

 

PS. Or I could ask if you don't mind. I'm doing it now...

Edited August 14, 2009 by nac

[Vajrahridaya]

Ah but here's the thing, they both are always pointing to the same moon - there is only one moon.

The moon is the truth, the fingers that are pointing may do so from differing conditioning. That doesn't change the moon.

Don't get trapped in equating your intellectual exercises with reality.

 

Steve,

 

I know that this is a popular New Age notion, but...

 

The moon is different. The Moon in Buddhism is not some non-conceptual void, or a state of being that is beyond time and space. Our realization is reflected in the intellectual expressions, and it is different. In Buddhism, the truth is not just a state of mind that is stripped of concepts that we integrate the rest of our day with.

 

In most schools, all things are modifications of one substance and in Buddhism, all things are co-dependently created, sustained and destroyed by and are of infinite mind-streams that are all inherently empty of substance since beginngless time. There is not a source of existence, there is not a fullness of being that was before the universe. There is not a one being that we will all merge into at the end of the universal expression. There is not a single creator of all things that we are expressions of. It's not just semantics. The inner realization is a different Truth of the cosmos.

 

Realizing the state of Buddahood is not the same as being one with Shiva, or being one with the light of the universe, or realizing the one substance that all things are.

 

The Buddha actually pointed to an entirely different moon. He defined the Truth of existence differently through words, not because it's a truth that's beyond words that all rivers lead to, but because it's actually an entirely different ocean on a different planet in a different solar system, in a different universe. Just to use a metaphor.

 

Take care.

 

 

 

Vajrahridaya, I know for a fact that even the most esoteric of Tibetan Buddhists believe the realms should not be externally objectified. I've come across this teaching quite recently here. It's written by a Tibetan lama. Ask in E-Sangha if you're still not convinced. I've seen it there more times than I could count in every single school.

 

In every school of Buddhism they are considered real realms. It's spoken of in the Pali Suttas, etc.

 

That is just one dimension of the teaching that if the realization is going to do us any good, that we must uproot the causes of these states and rebirths, from within and not think of them as merely some dimension of reality out there.

 

Do you want me to pick out endless quotes? Are you familiar with "The Words of My Perfect Teacher"?

 

Just as this realm called, Earth is a co-created dimension shared by beings of complex simultaneous states of mental projections giving this reality a reality to be sustained for as long as it is, by countless sentient beings in many dimensions, so are other realms of conscious, sentient experience.

 

This is part of the Buddhist teaching in every turning of the wheel, including Dzogchen. All states of consciousness and states of conscious experience are caused from within though... relatively speaking.

 

One can have direct intuition of these realms, direct experience of these realms through meditative practice and realization.