What makes Buddhism different?

[Sunya]

Yes, at some point we should quit engaging his ego and stop responding to his posts. Hopefully after the fru-fra of this topic, theTB's will be able to see he's just a tiresome broken record with the same old Buddhist propaganda and that he gets to puff up his own ego by 'enlightening' us ad nauseam.

 

 

LOL. biggest ego of them all talking about ego, Vajra is having great conversation IMO and stating good stuff, engaging stuff, and not everyone gets defensive and weird, though these sort of people tend to ruin the threads. btw speaking of ego, when are you going to contribute anything that isn't about you or how you feel? have you ever actually helped anybody here? ego..

 

i don't know why I keep repeating it, if you don't like this conversation don't participate, there are other threads going down. its strange how some people only really participate when there is argument going on, but when there is actual conversation they are silent. then they butt in and try to steer the conversation into argument because they can't stand it. very strange to me.

 

Vajraji's arguments are presented in the context of doctrine (propaganda). Rather than explain specific methodology in detail, the same untenable arguments are presented ad infinitum. His presentation is not unlike the fundamentalist preachers that use the same persuasive techniques to indoctrinate and convert masses of non believers to believers. Believe in the Buddha and you will be saved!!

 

He did admit in an earlier post that he is a Buddhist fundamentalist.

 

ralis

 

we have explained time and time again how this isn't just repeating doctrine or propoganda, i have went into detail before about how logically it makes sense that view must precede proper realization. and its flawed to think you simply must 'let go' of all beliefs and you will be granted infinite wisdom.. but really it seems pointless because the same people keep coming back and spouting strange conspiracy theories and bringing negativity with them. that is karma I guess.

 

I believe you were born with free will.

 

When you were born you mind was a blank slate.

 

 

these two statements are at odds. if you were born with a blank slate then that means that all your experiences therefore have defined who you are, your characteristics, your personality, etc. it's like saying you go into an amusement park which already has a finite # of rides and food and paths, but you have the 'free will' to choose which ones to go on. is that really free will?

 

but I don't particularly hold the view of tabula rasa. I think it was a nice counter argument to the pure nature folks who view human characteristics as something unchangeable that you're born with, but its just going in the other extreme. it's pretty obvious I think that some people are born with bad tendencies and some are not so. environment isn't everything as there are real gems who grow up in really bad conditions

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

LOL. biggest ego of them all talking about ego, Vajra is having great conversation IMO and stating good stuff, engaging stuff, and not everyone gets defensive and weird, though these sort of people tend to ruin the threads. btw speaking of ego, when are you going to contribute anything that isn't about you or how you feel? have you ever actually helped anybody here? ego..

 

i don't know why I keep repeating it, if you don't like this conversation don't participate, there are other threads going down. its strange how some people only really participate when there is argument going on, but when there is actual conversation they are silent. then they butt in and try to steer the conversation into argument because they can't stand it. very strange to me.

we have explained time and time again how this isn't just repeating doctrine or propoganda, i have went into detail before about how logically it makes sense that view must precede proper realization. and its flawed to think you simply must 'let go' of all beliefs and you will be granted infinite wisdom.. but really it seems pointless because the same people keep coming back and spouting strange conspiracy theories and bringing negativity with them. that is karma I guess.

these two statements are at odds. if you were born with a blank slate then that means that all your experiences therefore have defined who you are, your characteristics, your personality, etc. it's like saying you go into an amusement park which already has a finite # of rides and food and paths, but you have the 'free will' to choose which ones to go on. is that really free will?

 

but I don't particularly hold the view of tabula rasa. I think it was a nice counter argument to the pure nature folks who view human characteristics as something unchangeable that you're born with, but its just going in the other extreme. it's pretty obvious I think that some people are born with bad tendencies and some are not so. environment isn't everything as there are real gems who grow up in really bad conditions

 

 

It's Ok, Robin. You're still very young and Batman still seems like da Bomb.

 

 

p.s., why is Batman getting into all these scrapes with people? Even the Joker is getting kind of tired of him...

[Marblehead]

these two statements are at odds. if you were born with a blank slate then that means that all your experiences therefore have defined who you are, your characteristics, your personality, etc. it's like saying you go into an amusement park which already has a finite # of rides and food and paths, but you have the 'free will' to choose which ones to go on. is that really free will?

 

but I don't particularly hold the view of tabula rasa. I think it was a nice counter argument to the pure nature folks who view human characteristics as something unchangeable that you're born with, but its just going in the other extreme. it's pretty obvious I think that some people are born with bad tendencies and some are not so. environment isn't everything as there are real gems who grow up in really bad conditions

 

Hi Mikaelz,

 

They are really not at odds if you consider the part I left out that wasn't necessary for that post. The part I didn't mention is that 'we all are created (born) with our own set of capabilities and capacities' (mental, spiritual, and physical).

 

Okay. You know, I'm sure, that I do not hold to the concept of reincarnation so for me there was no prior life for anything to be carried over from.

 

I would, however, consider Jung's theory of 'collective unconscious'. That is, information contained in DNA that is passed on from generation to generation.

 

Anyhow, our free will will be limited by our individual capabilities and capacities; it will be limited by the environment we were born into if we are unable to move to a less limiting environment. A list of ten, maybe twenty limiting factors, maybe more, could be drawn up that would describe an individual's limits.

 

And then when we are young we are taught this and that according to our parents' desires as well as the standards of the society, our peers, etc., etc.

 

But somewhere along the line, if we are lucky, we will reach the age of original cognative thought. That is, we think for ourself - we can make our own decisions based upon (sure, intiially what we have been taught, but later) what 'seems' 'right' in our own mind.

 

From this point on we are capable of making our own decisions based on the concept of cost/benefit. What will it cost me to get a better education? What will it cost me to buy that gituar that I am so sure I can play? What will it cost for me to migrate to another country so that I have a better chance of earning enough money to change my lifestyle and the lifestyle of those I love? The process of inacting our decisions of cost/benefit I call free will.

 

And when we learn what our capabilities and capacities are we can develop them to near perfection. We therefore maximize our choices.

 

Now this all pertains to the physical world. The 'yo' of Taoism.

 

If we were to speak of the 'wu' of Taoism then I would agree, there are no limits.

 

Happy Trails!

[Stigweard]

I have made a new topic Guidelines for Taoist-Buddhist Dialog. I vote we all head over and post our commitment to these guidelines before continuing.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

[Marblehead]

Okay. So here are my questions V.

 

To whom are you presenting this information?

 

Do you expect a response and discussion from the post? (There are similar entries in Chuang Tzu regarding this exact subject.)

 

You don't really expect me to show exceptional interest in the post, do you? (Afterall, that would indicate that I was interested in learning more about Buddhism and that would not be true.)

 

Or are you presenting the information for those who are interested in the Buddhist philosophy (religion)?

 

Now, all Buddhists know that Buddhism is the truest philosophy. But then, all Taoists know that Taoism is the truest philosophy. And all Christians know that Christianity is the only true religion. So we would naturally have to agree to disagree and no longer discuss which is 'better'.

 

Now, based on the title of the thread, I think a very worthwhile discussion could take place as long as the discussions do not degrade to judgements of other religions/belief systems and as long as the Taoists here do not jump in and say that you are talking too much about Buddhism. Hey! This thread is about Buddhism! You don't expect to see a discussion of the Christian book of Revelations do you?

 

Actually, I probably would not have posted at all in this thread had it not been for the fact that Taoism was mentioned. But then, if I were a Christian and Christianity was mentioned I probably would have gotten involved then too.

 

So. Hopefully my Buddhist friends here can have respectful discussions without us Taoists getting involved and we Taoist can have our discussions, etc., etc.

 

And hopefully we can even have discussion of the concepts that Taoism and Buddhism have in common. I think that would be nice.

 

Anyhow. If you would define your intent (yes, once more even though you may have already done so) so that the discussion can follow the intent and it won't be interrupted again those of us who enjoy fruitful discussions could easily decide whether or not we wish to join the discussion.

 

Thanks.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Okay. So here are my questions V.

 

To whom are you presenting this information?

 

 

 

Whoever is interested. It was Taoists that brought up the argument.

 

I was just posting in the spirit of the thread, that is all, not arguing against anyone. Though, I would consider Taoism as Monism myself, as in "one-ism". So, I am in personal disagreement with it's main tenet. Even though, I do support many of it's practices and divination text the I-Ching which can be interpreted in a Buddhist way because of it's open ended-ness as using the term Tao to not mean an ineffable source, but rather just a label for the dynamics of nature, "the way" things move. I am also in full support of the more Buddhist interpretations of Taoism.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Tao De Ching though, except that I do see some wisdom in it, but for the most part it's just a whole bunch of vagueness to me. I like Chuang Tzu better. Very much so in fact!! I find his teachings to be more realized.

[Mal]

I'm not a big fan of the Tao De Ching though, except that I do see some wisdom in it

<snip>

I like Chuang Tzu better. Very much so in fact!!

 

We agree {happy dance for Mal} You might also enjoy the Hua Hu Ching

[Chang San Feng]

Whoever is interested. It was Taoists that brought up the argument.

 

I was just posting in the spirit of the thread, that is all, not arguing against anyone. Though, I would consider Taoism as Monism myself, as in "one-ism". So, I am in personal disagreement with it's main tenet. Even though, I do support many of it's practices and divination text the I-Ching which can be interpreted in a Buddhist way because of it's open ended-ness as using the term Tao to not mean an ineffable source, but rather just a label for the dynamics of nature, "the way" things move. I am also in full support of the more Buddhist interpretations of Taoism.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Tao De Ching though, except that I do see some wisdom in it, but for the most part it's just a whole bunch of vagueness to me. I like Chuang Tzu better. Very much so in fact!! I find his teachings to be more realized.

 

 

You are in personally disagreement with your delusion of Tao.

 

Buddhism is a Tao.

 

If you wish to be truly wise, you would forget everything you have learnt about anything.

[Marblehead]

Whoever is interested. It was Taoists that brought up the argument.

 

I was just posting in the spirit of the thread, that is all, not arguing against anyone. Though, I would consider Taoism as Monism myself, as in "one-ism". So, I am in personal disagreement with it's main tenet. Even though, I do support many of it's practices and divination text the I-Ching which can be interpreted in a Buddhist way because of it's open ended-ness as using the term Tao to not mean an ineffable source, but rather just a label for the dynamics of nature, "the way" things move. I am also in full support of the more Buddhist interpretations of Taoism.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Tao De Ching though, except that I do see some wisdom in it, but for the most part it's just a whole bunch of vagueness to me. I like Chuang Tzu better. Very much so in fact!! I find his teachings to be more realized.

 

You are silly sometimes. You know that? You just did what I suggested shouldn't be done. This is a Buddhist thread. Why are you talking about Taoism?

 

I wasn't blaming anyone. Shit happens. But normally only once a day. It doesn't matter what Taoism is because it is Buddhism that is the subject of the thread.

 

You wanna' talk about Taoism? Come over to one of the chapters I am posting on Taoist Philosophy. Over there we can agree to disagree on the main tenet then move on to see all the wonderful wisdom that can be found in Taoist Philosophy.

 

Or, you could even start a thread and invite all us Taoists to join in a discussion comparing the wisdom of the two belief systems.

 

Cheeeezzzze!

 

Happy Trails!

Edited September 25, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Cheeeezzzze!

 

Happy Trails!

 

You are the one that replied to my above post not mentioning Taoism at all in a thread entitled What makes Buddhism different, not entitled the differences between Buddhism and Taoism! You are so subjective... seriously, you are.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

Whoever is interested. It was Taoists that brought up the argument.

But it was you that said "transcendent" Just ribbing ya!

I was just posting in the spirit of the thread, that is all, not arguing against anyone. Though, I would consider Taoism as Monism myself, as in "one-ism". So, I am in personal disagreement with it's main tenet. Even though, I do support many of it's practices and divination text the I-Ching which can be interpreted in a Buddhist way because of it's open ended-ness as using the term Tao to not mean an ineffable source, but rather just a label for the dynamics of nature, "the way" things move. I am also in full support of the more Buddhist interpretations of Taoism.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Tao De Ching though, except that I do see some wisdom in it, but for the most part it's just a whole bunch of vagueness to me. I like Chuang Tzu better. Very much so in fact!! I find his teachings to be more realized.

You obviously took great care with your wording. Good for you

 

You are silly sometimes. You know that? You just did what I suggested shouldn't be done. This is a Buddhist thread. Why are you talking about Taoism?

 

I wasn't blaming anyone. Shit happens. But normally only once a day. It doesn't matter what Taoism is because it is Buddhism that is the subject of the thread.

 

You wanna' talk about Taoism? Come over to one of the chapters I am posting on Taoist Philosophy. Over there we can agree to disagree on the main tenet then move on to see all the wonderful wisdom that can be found in Taoist Philosophy.

 

Or, you could even start a thread and invite all us Taoists to join in a discussion comparing the wisdom of the two belief systems.

 

Cheeeezzzze!

 

Happy Trails!

I'll have to stand by Vajrahridaya on this one Marblehead.

 

He has the right to speak freely about whatever he wishes IMO. We just have to stay mindful of the agreements we made over Guidelines for Taoist-Buddhist Dialog.

 

Agreed?

[Marblehead]

Never mind.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Marblehead

[ngtest]

As there really is no cosmos, only a whole bunch of connected processes.

 

Basically there is no world, nor are there any living beings.

[nac]

I come back a month later, and what do I see? You guys are still at it. Unbelievable!

 

PS. You can't establish the superiority of either Buddha or Nietzsche through dialog. It mostly comes down to one's current personality and preferences IMO.

Edited September 28, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

It mostly comes down to one's current personality and preferences IMO.

 

Who wudda' knowed?

 

May the Love of Tao caress each and every one of you Buddhists!

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Who wudda' knowed?

 

May the Love of Tao caress each and every one of you Buddhists!

 

Happy Trails!

 

LOL! May all Taoists see past mysterious ambiguity into objective clarity.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

LOL! May all Taoists see past mysterious ambiguity into objective clarity.

 

Wait a minute! That doesn't deny me my delusions, does it?

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

Wait a minute! That doesn't deny me my delusions, does it?

 

Happy Trails!

 

I guess it does!

[Marblehead]

 

I guess it does!

 

What a dilemma! Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have denied me my delusions. Nietzsche didn't even want to talk about it and now you tell me that Buddha said it is a no-no.

 

What to do? Decisions. Decisions. AHHHGGG!!!

 

But then ... ... never mind. That wouldn't work.

 

Happy Trails!

[Vajrahridaya]

What a dilemma! Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have denied me my delusions. Nietzsche didn't even want to talk about it and now you tell me that Buddha said it is a no-no.

 

What to do? Decisions. Decisions. AHHHGGG!!!

 

But then ... ... never mind. That wouldn't work.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Oh believe you me. Sometimes when I was a bit younger, I used to wish that I had never realized certain spiritual truths. Because now I can't enjoy my delusions with as much blissful ignorance!! ARGH!!!

 

p.s. I've since taken the high road and decided to enjoy my delusions without the blissful ignorance and now somehow... I enjoy them even more because they don't take control of my psyche. They just dance like fancy display's and are less destructive in the influence.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Oh believe you me. Sometimes when I was a bit younger, I used to wish that I had never realized certain spiritual truths. Because now I can't enjoy my delusions with as much blissful ignorance!! ARGH!!!

 

p.s. I've since taken the high road and decided to enjoy my delusions without the blissful ignorance and now somehow... I enjoy them even more because they don't take control of my psyche. They just dance like fancy display's and are less destructive in the influence.

 

Yes, as long as we realize (are aware) that our delusions are delusions I see no real harm.

 

Happy Trails!

[Stigweard]

Yes, as long as we realize (are aware) that our delusions are delusions I see no real harm.

 

Happy Trails!

In the Toltec tradition this is called "Controlled Folly"

[Marblehead]

"Controlled Folly"

 

I like that!!!!!!!!! (Been there, done that. Hehehe)

 

Happy Trails!

[Marblehead]

What makes Buddhism different is that fact that it pretends to be a religion but it really isn't. Taoism, on the other hand is a true religion because it has its many gods and godesses. But Buddhism is different from philosophical Taoism as well because it pretends that it has all the answers. The only problem is that no one has yet asked the right questions.

 

Taoism, on the other hand has never claimed to have any answers for any question of anything beyond the Manifest reality. And even here, Toaist philosophy has no commandment or tenents that must be adhered to. Rather, my philosophy tells me to observe nature, understand the processes, and live my life as close as possible to these processes. In doing so I am likely to be able to live my life to its fullest without putting myself in harm's way.

 

So good for all you Buddhists who have found the way to overcome the suffering that didn't exist in the first place but that you were convinced really did exist so you started suffering. So now that you are not suffering anymore and after wasting half your life learning how to suffer, then suffering for countless years, and finally overcome your suffering you can get off you lazy asses and start living.

 

Of course, you won't catch up with the Taoists because they never had to go through all that learning how to suffer, suffering, then overcoming the suffering. We have been living our life according to its natural capacities and capabilities.

 

So what is really different about Buddhism is that it tries to make life so damn complicated when in reality it is so very simple. And we Taoists don't wait until our next life to live. We live in the NOW!

 

Happy Trails!