What makes Buddhism different?

[Sunya]

I keep saying it my friend because you (being the collective) have got the definition wrong. Are you honestly trying to tell me that we should take liberty with the meanings of the words in our language? Just because you guys are jumping up and down saying that reification means xyz doesn't mean it does.

 

Reification (also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: if the phrase "holds another's affection", is taken literally, affection would be reified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

 

reify: to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify

 

reification: to convert into or regard as a concrete thing: to reify a concept. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reification?jss=1

 

reify: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reify

 

I have been diligent in this discussion to provide clear evidence to support my statements and all I get in return is your opinions that Buddhism defines "reification" as something other than is agreed upon by every credible source of the English language across the world. So until you provide credible support for your claims that reification means "to exist independent of conditions" then I will continue to repeat my statements. In trying to authoritatively state that "Taoists reify Tao" you (again the collective) are stating an unadulterated lie and an untruth and I find it unacceptable for such lies to be perpetuated especially in a forum that is predominantly about Taoism.

 

I explained to you pretty thoroughly why the word reification is used and how it directly relates to what is being said. why did you spend 20 minutes writing such a useless post? i'm sorry if that sounds offensive but i'm pretty astonished at how much mental masturbating people do to avoid something that is staring them in the face. it's as if you're purposely avoiding what is being discussed..

 

one more time. reification is to make real. "real" in a metaphysical context means to exist independent of conditions, synonym for "true". truth cannot be dependent on circumstance, conditions, or causes. truth simply is. since reification is to make 'real' it is considered wrong in Buddhism because 'truth' is unmanufactered, so in essence when you reify the Tao you are making it real but only subjectively. since that 'Tao' or whatever you want to call it is dependent upon the idea of Tao, and not irrespective of your believing in it. to hold an abstraction as true means you will create that reality for yourself and leading yourself to error in actually experiencing truth.

 

 

 

I think that you are simply moving the magic. Now you are giving the power to create reality to all of the subunits of this so called co-dependent matrix. But it's still a source of reality and you can still ask where the subunits get the power to generate reality. And since you are claiming that a unitive creator has a problem because the issue of creation can lead to infinite regression, then your solution still has the same problem.

That's just an assertion.

 

reality isn't generated, reality is empty, so are the 'subunits'. you are new to non-duality I take it. that's ok. I suggest checking out David Loy's books

 

Try your chair example. You say that it is composed of pieces like legs, etc. and what are the pieces composed of and where did they come from. You can say molecules. What are the molecules composed of and where did they come from. You say atom. And what are the atoms composed of and where did they come from. You say subatomic particles. And what are the subatomic particles composed of and where do they come from. Maybe you say strings. Etc. etc. etc. The co-dependent matrix for the chair fades of into infinity, and you have simply pushed the problem off to a word that has no meaning. Because conceptually, infinity is nothing but a symbol. It has no mental corrolation.

 

the whole is dependent on its parts and the parts are dependent on the whole but you are basically saying i'm a reductionist but that isn't so. there is no reducing. there is no grand 'whole' and there is no essential 'part' or building block. the chair is as real as the molecules that make it up, both chair and molecule are empty phenomena.

[Vajrahridaya]

Again, same magic, different words.... of absurd mumbo jumbo.

 

The problem here is taking things at face value, as in the words that appear on this board coming from people that you have never met in person. The inability to accept these words as true, if it fly's in the face of one's own experience? Is of course understandable. It's hard to be flexible and perceive beyond one's own experientially remembered limitations. Please listen to what that means. It means that you remember certain experiences on a conscious level, and these are your limited perceptions of reality. You conceive of this as being "reality"... so you can't conceive that others have transcended these limitations in their own reality due to their own experience and effort given towards their own self consciousness discovery. But the fact remains... there is more in heaven and earth that is dreampt of in your current reference for experiential reality.

 

There are actually those people that gave not only this life, but lifetimes... to the experience of spirituality and meditation and have reaped the fruit of it, to one degree or another.

 

We do exist... We do.

 

These are NOT just words. They do reference direct experiencing and insight into the nature of all things.

 

The Buddha was not a historical figure that spoke lies about things. He was an example of our true human potentiality outside of popular consensus, plane and simple.

[vsaluki]

I actually can.

 

Just another empty phenomena.

 

 

That something to bang is the end of the last crunch.

 

Same problem with the crunch.

 

No, that's stating that there is one thing, that all things come from. When I'm stating that Buddhism states, that all things come from all things. Not one thing.

 

Yes, I got that long ago. What I'm stating is that the conceptual problems that you claim for one thing all exist for your solution of having all things come from all things.

 

No, I just think you need to meditate more and study more. Forget concepts for a while and sit on the cushion.

 

A lot of people meditate and sit on a cusion. Some of them have the unative experience of god. You call their experiences empty phenomena. But your experiences are equally empty phenomena. You claim that your experiences are more real or of a higher caliber because they fit in with a better conceptualization. But your conceptualization has all of the problems that you claim that the unitive god has. Yes, it's a little different. But you haven't solved any of the problems of the unitive god conception that you claim makes yours superior. You think that using the words beginningless and endless somehow get you out of the regression problem. But that solution also gets the unitive god out of the regression problem.

 

They are pointing to an experiential example emplaced/enlodged in the fact that you exist.

 

My existence is explained just as well by the unitive god idea as it is by your idea that all things come from all things. Because the question remains, from where did all things aquire the power to create reality. Your answer that they are beginningless is and evasion and the same evasion can be used with a unative god.

 

Meditate on your existence.

 

My existence is doing just fine, thank you.

 

Because you don't get it doesn't make it not true.

 

Same applies to you.

 

See some humility in yourself. I don't lie to myself.

 

Ditto. Ditto.

 

dependent origination/emptiness is non-paradoxical though.

 

It's as paradoxical as unative creation.

 

The problem here is taking things at face value, as in the words that appear on this board coming from people that you have never met in person. The inability to accept these words as true, if it fly's in the face of one's own experience? Is of course understandable. It's hard to be flexible and perceive beyond one's own experientially remembered limitations. Please listen to what that means. It means that you remember certain experiences on a conscious level, and these are your limited perceptions of reality. You conceive of this as being "reality"... so you can't conceive that others have transcended these limitations in their own reality due to their own experience and effort given towards their own self consciousness discovery. But the fact remains... there is more in heaven and earth that is dreampt of in your current reference for experiential reality.

 

There are actually those people that gave not only this life, but lifetimes... to the experience of spirituality and meditation and have reaped the fruit of it, to one degree or another.

 

We do exist... We do.

 

These are NOT just words. They do reference direct experiencing and insight into the nature of all things.

 

The Buddha was not a historical figure that spoke lies about things. He was an example of our true human potentiality outside of popular consensus, plane and simple.

 

Now, take everything that you just said and imagine that a person with a unative experience of god is saying it to you. Then imagine that he has replaced the word Buddha with the words Lao Tzu.

[Vajrahridaya]

You think that using the words beginningless and endless somehow get you out of the regression problem. But that solution also gets the unitive god out of the regression problem.

 

Endless regression is not the problem, it's the solution. Beginningless infinite regression and endless infinite progression. That's emptiness of dependent origination which is the ALL. There is no independent originating. Which is the concept of God.

 

 

My existence is explained just as well by the unitive god idea as it is by your idea that all things come from all things.

 

Then what will happen to you when all perceivable phenomena dissolve?

 

Because the question remains, from where did all things aquire the power to create reality.

 

beginningless regress.

 

Your answer that they are beginningless is and evasion and the same evasion can be used with a unative god.

 

Not for us that see personal causation transcending limited lifetime birth and rebirth past the beginning of this universe. As in... past the big bang and see the big crunch and the big bang, and the big crunch and the big bang. The formless potentiality which is repressed processing abilities and bodies, manifest into unmanifest through identity to a mysterious will of all, is the cause of crunch time. The ending of the holding energy based upon intention of union with a homogeneous ground of all, as in the end of that karmic grasping to a blissful formless, conceptless union, is the cause of the big bang. When all this unconscious springs forth seemingly propelled from no-where! But it was really suppressed and unrealized potentiality from the last here.

 

My existence is doing just fine, thank you.

 

Glad to hear!

 

It's as paradoxical as unative creation.

 

No, it's not... because it picks apart the ignorance that thinks there is one thing causing all this. It see's infinite regress is cosmos as not a problem, but the solution.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[vsaluki]

reality isn't generated, reality is empty, so are the 'subunits'.

 

This is dumb. If reality is empty then there is no reality. If there is no reality, then there are no phenomena. If you want to say that emptiness can create phenomena then you are playing word games instead of trying to communicate. An emptiness that can create phenomena is not empty.

 

Your problem is that there are phenomena. The phenomena have to be generated. If you say that they come from subunits or if you say that they come from god, you have the same problems.

 

you are new to non-duality I take it.

 

I've understood non-duality for 35 years. I may be new to some of your terminology, but from what you are able to explain, your model has all of the same problems that you claim the uniative god model has. What the unitive god creates is not an object to be observed and an observer to observe it, but rather the unative god is the source of all the phenomena that we typically characterize as reality. You can call them empty phenomena or you can call them mind. But if you think that describing what is behind them as some kind of multiple sub unit creative matrix will eliminate problems of metaphysical conceptualization, then you simply don't understand your own solution.

[vsaluki]

Endless regression is not the problem, it's the solution.

 

It is not a solution at all. It's simply shoving the problem away with language. A beginningless and endless god as the creator of phenomena is just as good a solution.

 

There is no independent originating. Which is the concept of God.

 

Like I said, I get it. I got it long ago. But everything creating everything is a stupid idea. It avoids the question of how this matrix of co-creation creates. Saying that it is beginningless and endless still avoids the question. Saying that it always has and it always will still avoids the question. What you don't understand is that you are making simple assertions and you haven't given me a single reason why those assertions are a better model than the unitive god model.

 

So then you claim that it is better because you sit on a cusion and meditate and you have direct experience. Well, other people who sit on a cushion and meditate have a different direct experience. So far your explanation for why your experience is superior is a complete flop.

 

Then what will happen to you when all perceivable phenomena dissolve?

 

It's a nonsensical question. They have no more reason to dissolve with the unative god model than they do with your model. If you are talking about death, there is no death. The unitive god is both self and eternal. If there is an interruption of phenomena it does not effect the source of the phenomena. If you are asking what happens before during and after all perceivable phenomena disolve, the answer is I don't know. But I also don't care, because the true me is not the phenomena, but rather the source of the phenomena. You don't know what happens either. You've simply made up an answer about rebirth.

 

Not for us that see personal causation transcending limited lifetime birth and rebirth past the beginning of this universe. As in... past the big bang and see the big crunch and the big bang, and the big crunch and the big bang. The formless potentiality which is repressed processing abilities and bodies, manifest into unmanifest through identity to a mysterious will of all, is the cause of crunch time. The ending of the holding energy based upon intention of union with a homogeneous ground of all, as in the end of that karmic grasping to a blissful formless, conceptless union, is the cause of the big bang. When all this unconscious springs forth seemingly propelled from no-where! But it was really suppressed and unrealized potentiality from the last here.

 

ROFLMAO. It's been fun. I need to get some sleep - dissolve the phenomena.

Edited September 22, 2009 by vsaluki

[Vajrahridaya]

This is dumb. If reality is empty then there is no reality. If there is no reality, then there are no phenomena. If you want to say that emptiness can create phenomena then you are playing word games instead of trying to communicate. An emptiness that can create phenomena is not empty.

 

It's ok, you are new to Buddhism and have probably never read Nagarjuna, one of the forefathers of Mahayana. Emptiness does not mean nothingness, it means dependent origination.

 

Here's some Nagarjuna... Nagarjuna on Wiki. Please be patient and give yourself some time to read this all the way through. Nagarjuna is critical in the development of Buddhist logic. He is considered a second Buddha by most of the worlds Buddhist practitioners. If you read this, you will have a better context for understanding the premise of this thread.

 

Dependent origination means no static essence which means empty of inherent existence. This means the self is relative to all existents and does not stand on it's own. Neither does the cosmos, as it's merely the sum of it's parts.

 

Really you calling Michaelz statement dumb is actually quite wrong, because you actually didn't understand what he meant by emptiness. Emptiness in Buddhism means all things have relative existence and no ultimate existence, or are "empty" of ultimate existence and only exist relative to beginningless causation.

 

Your problem is that there are phenomena. The phenomena have to be generated. If you say that they come from subunits or if you say that they come from god, you have the same problems.

 

No, the only problem is you not understanding our syntax. All phenomena are dependently originated and without self essence.

I've understood non-duality for 35 years. I may be new to some of your terminology, but from what you are able to explain, your model has all of the same problems that you claim the uniative god model has. What the unitive god creates is not an object to be observed and an observer to observe it, but rather the unative god is the source of all the phenomena that we typically characterize as reality. You can call them empty phenomena or you can call them mind. But if you think that describing what is behind them as some kind of multiple sub unit creative matrix will eliminate problems of metaphysical conceptualization, then you simply don't understand your own solution.

 

No, you don't understand the meaning of our words because we are coming from a different paradigm. Like the other side of the train tracks has an entirely different social system that you would not be able to understand unless you grew up there.

 

What we are saying is that saying that everything has a single cause, is that all things are under one will, and that all suffering can be blamed on one being, so no free will. If there is only one Self of all, and this is God, the creator of all, then all my suffering is his or her fault, and I can only submit to his or her will and at the end of the universe, I will dissolve back into that being.

 

There is no liberation in this conception according to a Buddhist. This is bondage.

 

So... we as Buddhists have the solution. You as a theist are bound by a problem that is a misunderstanding of how the universe works.

 

Because you don't understand our syntax, doesn't mean that we do not. You need some context. Study some Buddhism. It is a huge paradigm shift.

[Vajrahridaya]

It is not solution at all. It's simply shoving the problem away with language. A beginningless and endless god as the creator of phenomena is just as good a solution.

 

How?

 

As a Buddhist, I want to not have any more unconscious rebirths and have no more psychological suffering, ever, ever again.

 

Like I said, I get it. I got it long ago. But everything creating everything is a stupid idea. It avoids the question of how this matrix of co-creation creates. Saying that it is beginningless and endless still avoids the question.

 

No it doesn't. This arises because of that, and that arises because of that other... so on and so forth. The power of causation is not some eternal will, but causation itself without beginning.

 

Because of this, that arises, because of that, this arises. That is dependent origination add infinitum. This shows that there is no stand alone self, this shows interconnectivity, this shows the reason for compassion, compassion is the way out of negative karma, the way out of negative karma is the way out of suffering.

 

Saying that it always has and it always will still avoids the question. What you don't understand is that you are making simple assertions and you haven't given me a single reason why those assertions are a better model than the unitive god model.

 

God as a creator says what about the cause of suffering?

 

So then you claim that it is better because you sit on a cusion and meditate and you have direct experience. Well, other people who sit on a cushion and meditate have a different direct experience. So far your explanation for why your experience is superior is a complete flop.

 

In Buddhism, the first of the 8 fold noble path is right view, which is understanding dependent origination, which is seeing past a primal cause. Then you meditate and integrate one's experiences with that view. Thus one doesn't fall into the trap of eternalism, which is the theistic view. Saying there is a single essence to all this that all arises from and returns too. That means there is not really any free will and only one Self of all.

 

It's a nonsensical question. They have no more reason to disolve with the unative god model than they do with your model.

 

No, your just not understanding the meaning of the question. If God is the substratum of all things, then when all phenomena dissolve at the end of the universe, then you will just dissolve into this God, to be what?

 

Your really a beginner at this. I'm afraid you won't accept me telling you this. Your not even at a level of understanding our context here. Like a first grader watching college kids figure out math problems.

 

If you are talking about death, there is no death. The unitive god is both self and eternal.

 

So... I suffer because he wills it. Great! All my problems are his.

 

If there is an interruption of phenomena it does not effect the source of the phenomena.

 

There being some eternal source makes no sense to a Buddhist and does not answer the question of why we suffer, experience old age, and die as individuals.

 

If you are asking what happens before during and after all perceivable phenomena disolve, the answer is I don't know. But I also don't care, because the true me is not the phenomena, but rather the source of the phenomena. You don't know what happens either. You've simply made up an answer about rebirth.

ROFLMAO.

 

Actually, your just doing what I said you do. Project your own experiential limitations onto others. I actually do know.

 

I've done lots of meditation and have seen directly what is happening on a level beyond the 5 senses and their created tools. It can be interpreted to a degree of Theism akin to as deep as Hinduism goes, or one can go deeper by understanding first "right view" in the 8 fold noble path of Buddhism and have a different context for meditative experience and liberate from this single will that holds us all to the cycle of birth and death over and over again, universe after universe. To suffer, play, and have pleasure, only to die and be reborn unconsciously.

 

I've broken that pattern thank you very much. I actually know what I'm talking about and know that I know what I'm talking about!! This is the cause for lots of happiness!!

[Apech]

[vsaluki]

Because you don't understand our syntax, doesn't mean that we do not.

 

Yes, I can see that using the words emptiness and nothingness to mean two different things is really an attempt at clarity. LOL. But I guessed that you meant something other than nothingness when you used emptiness, and the rest of my post still holds with regards to dependent origination. I'll get back to this tomorrow.

[Marblehead]

The Buddha was the first to claim a superior doctrine, so he's either wrong or right. I find him to be right. Other people want to accept certain things he said and dismiss others instead of seeing the entire teaching as a whole and congruent meaningful unity.

 

Actually, this is a false statement. Zarathushtra (the real one, not Nietzsche's imaginary one) was the first to proclaim a superior doctrine many hundreds of years before Buddha was even born. And the religion he founded is the oldest known monotheistic religion on the planet.

 

BTW We shouldn't believe everything we hear or read. Some people have been known to be wrong.

 

Happy Trails!

[forestofemptiness]

What makes Buddhism different? It doesn't get bogged down in the sort of metaphysical nonsense this thread contains. See the unanswerable questions.

 

What really makes Buddhism different is the emphasis on the four seals:

 

1. Impermanence.

2. Unsatisfactoriness.

3. Non-self.

4. Nirvana.

 

I see a lot on this forum where people declare themselves to the spokespeople of Buddhism, and others assume that they are. It is not so.

 

Back to the nonsense...

[ralis]

Vajraji,

 

If you want others to understand you, I suggest purchasing the following.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-50th-...8797&sr=8-1

 

http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-30th-An...pd_bxgy_b_img_b

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Intro...mp;sr=1-2-spell

 

Your writing style contains errors in logic, syntax and and lacks clarity. Well thought out statements are always precise and need not contain excess words.

 

In the past, you have attempted to persuade your audience that your arguments are superior and only a few are able to comprehend. Somehow you believe that so called Buddhist logic will be perceived as a higher form of thought if written in a manner that is perceived as complex!

 

Why not read the following and compare your style to his.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Reductionism-Creativ...0374&sr=1-4

 

 

 

 

 

ralis

Edited September 22, 2009 by ralis

[Apech]

 

In the past, you have attempted to persuade your audience that your form of writing is a higher form of communication that few can comprehend. Somehow you believe that so called Buddhist logic needs to written disorderly. I suggest you read this and compare your style to his.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Reductionism-Creativ...0374&sr=1-4

ralis

 

 

Ralis,

 

Are you serious? You are recommending Guenther for clarity? Only if you wish to study Buddhism through the lens of Martin Heidegger in order to make subtle concepts doubly obscure ... here's an extract of one reader review:

 

"Perhaps worse than this often-annoying idiom is the author's lack of basic clarity. As a previous reviewer indicated, this book is indeed difficult, but it is made so by Guenther's proclivity to discuss terms for several pages before defining them. His prose is inarticulate and undisciplined."

 

While I suppose we all owe a debt to Dr. Guenther for his works on tantra and his translations of Gampopa and so on, he cannot possibly be held up as an example of good style.

 

A.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Sigh..., yes ralis, I agree. I've tried pointing out to Vajra that he lacks clarity and cogency, making his posts largely a frustrating waste of time. They only make sense in his head. vsaulki, don't bother getting into 'discussion with him, it's entirely frustrating, because he has his own self contained reality system that he is here to dump on us, and then to let us know that he is right and he "knows" because he has had profound meditative experiences (proof, that!) and when he was 12 he had an enlightenment experience and when he was born he was blue and in the lotus position or something. A modern prophet? I think I'm going to start a thread (not directly about about him) on Spiritual Egotism. I think that would be an interesting topic...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited September 22, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Lucky7Strikes]

The philosophy is the expression of the realization and I have been on the other side of life/death enough to know from direct seeing what is going on "up there". But... I'm open to really be proven wrong. I just haven't been. In my opinion. Let's see what Thusness has to say about translating some Taoist texts?

 

Plenty, plus I remember Chinese past lives. I don't expect you to believe me.

 

Therefore I doubt it as a true path to total liberation. It does not have the dharma seals.

 

So much unclarity to what it all actually means. None of the ancient Taoist teachers taught such clarity like the Buddha. So... why go anywhere else now that one knows? Habit and attachment? I don't wish to speak for others.

 

Does the Tao truly exist? Is it not the source, the mother of all being and beings?

 

See, you are interpreting Taoism through a Buddhist perspective of "liberation" being at the end of the tunnel. There is no set state of liberation. And... , no Dharma seals, so no total "liberation"....I don't think that's sound reasoning.

 

It's not that I don't believe you, but can you speak Chinese because you were born Chinese in a previous life? If you were a mechanic, can you all of a sudden apply the skills? There may be tendencies, but only that.

 

Ah yes! The unclear and uncertain is precisely the nature of the Way. Of course non of the other Taoist teachers taught such clarity like the Buddha, they weren't Buddhists!

 

The "Up there" you speak of only comes from your own perspective not different from this very own world. You see "up there" through the eyes of a Buddhist, and it may even be the realm of Buddhist creation.

 

So why go anywhere else now that one knows? You will never know beyond the context of personal experience. To carry knowledge is as important as to carry conscious ignorance, rather a potential for knowledge.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, I can see that using the words emptiness and nothingness to mean two different things is really an attempt at clarity. LOL. But I guessed that you meant something other than nothingness when you used emptiness, and the rest of my post still holds with regards to dependent origination. I'll get back to this tomorrow.

 

Vsaluki, I suggest you read other lengthy thread that have already gone over the whole United God vs. Emptiness. Look up Chicken and egg, Or Self, or...er... there were plenty 30 page threads on it.

[ralis]

Ralis,

 

Are you serious? You are recommending Guenther for clarity? Only if you wish to study Buddhism through the lens of Martin Heidegger in order to make subtle concepts doubly obscure ... here's an extract of one reader review:

 

"Perhaps worse than this often-annoying idiom is the author's lack of basic clarity. As a previous reviewer indicated, this book is indeed difficult, but it is made so by Guenther's proclivity to discuss terms for several pages before defining them. His prose is inarticulate and undisciplined."

 

While I suppose we all owe a debt to Dr. Guenther for his works on tantra and his translations of Gampopa and so on, he cannot possibly be held up as an example of good style.

 

A.

 

Thanks for some clarity on Guenther. About 20 yrs. ago, I read virtually everything Guenther wrote. Even with his difficult writing style, I was able to benefit from his writing.

 

My point is, Guenther's style is easier to understand than Vajraji's. At least for me it is.

 

ralis

 

 

Sigh..., yes ralis, I agree. I've tried pointing out to Vajra that he lacks clarity and cogency, making his posts largely a frustrating waste of time. They only make sense in his head. vsaulki, don't bother getting into 'discussion with him, it's entirely frustrating, because he has his own self contained reality system that he is here to dump on us, and then to let us know that he is right and he "knows" because he has had profound meditative experiences (proof, that!) and when he was 12 he had an enlightenment experience and when he was born he was blue and in the lotus position or something. A modern prophet? I think I'm going to start a thread (not directly about about him) on Spiritual Egotism. I think that would be an interesting topic...

.

 

He did state in one post, that his mother and a few other exceptional intellects, understand everything he writes.

 

 

 

ralis

Edited September 22, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually, this is a false statement. Zarathushtra (the real one, not Nietzsche's imaginary one) was the first to proclaim a superior doctrine many hundreds of years before Buddha was even born. And the religion he founded is the oldest known monotheistic religion on the planet.

 

BTW We shouldn't believe everything we hear or read. Some people have been known to be wrong.

 

Happy Trails!

 

I meant in regards to Buddhism, nothing else. He was the first to regard the Buddhist doctrine as superior to all others. I don't believe him to be right, I know him to be right.

 

What makes Buddhism different? It doesn't get bogged down in the sort of metaphysical nonsense this thread contains. See the unanswerable questions.

 

 

That's Theravada, not Mahayana.

 

All questions can be answered according to Mahayana.

 

Vajraji,

 

If you want others to understand you, I suggest purchasing the following.

 

 

Who said I was superior? It seems that there are those that do understand. Why should I write like others? Not everyone understands everyone.

 

 

So why go anywhere else now that one knows? You will never know beyond the context of personal experience. To carry knowledge is as important as to carry conscious ignorance, rather a potential for knowledge.

 

It should be in alignment with what historical Masters have said. So, the experience should reveal a truth that is interpersonal and not just totally subjective.

 

Don't be offended by my opinions. Everyone who doesn't understand me seems to wish I were dead.

 

Not you of course, but some others here. I just find that Taoism does not reveal the same clarity because it does not have the same clarity.

[ralis]

I meant in regards to Buddhism, nothing else. He was the first to regard the Buddhist doctrine as superior to all others. I don't believe him to be right, I know him to be right.

 

 

 

 

Who said I was superior? It seems that there are those that do understand. Why should I write like others? Not everyone understands everyone.

It should be in alignment with what historical Masters have said. So, the experience should reveal a truth that is interpersonal and not just totally subjective.

 

 

Not you of course, but some others here. I just find that Taoism does not reveal the same clarity because it does not have the same clarity.

 

Why not speak in glossolalia or just plain gibberish! How about something profoundly incomprehensible? What point are you trying to make by refusing to communicate well?

 

No matter how you try to frame it, your arguments are still based on conceptual ideology.

 

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Why not speak in glossolalia or just plain gibberish! How about something profoundly incomprehensible? What point are you trying to make by refusing to communicate well?

 

No matter how you try to frame it, your arguments are still based on conceptual ideology.

ralis

 

Not everyone shares your opinion Ralis. So, why hold so tightly to your position as law for anyone other than yourself? Also... I wonder why you take it upon yourself to try to change me on a personal level? I also wonder why I offend you so much? You are so effected Ralis. I wonder about the state of your mind. Using Taoism for poker? I don't take you seriously at all because you do nothing but insult me and insinuate tones in your transcribing of my words that weren't a part of my intentions to begin with. "Those Iraqis"? Only a few exceptional intellects? Saying that I call myself superior?

 

Why should I take any of your advice seriously Ralis? You should stick to your practice and ignore me, that way you'd suffer less.

[Apech]

Thanks for some clarity on Guenther. About 20 yrs. ago, I read virtually everything Guenther wrote. Even with his difficult writing style, I was able to benefit from his writing.

 

My point is, Guenther's style is easier to understand than Vajraji's. At least for me it is.

 

ralis

He did state in one post, that his mother and a few other exceptional intellects, understand everything he writes.

 

 

 

ralis

 

 

I agree Guenther is worth reading by the way - just that he is not a good example of clarity - not for me anyway.

 

Why do all of these types of threads break down into some kind of argument?

 

Vajraji is just saying what he believes and you don't have to agree. I think he has forgotten about Zhen-tong when he talks about reification, a point I made above... or was that another thread. Anyway Zhen-tong explains the positive qualities of the mind (generosity etc.) as originating in Buddha-nature - which is viewed as an existent. If you practice tantra the yidam is an aspect of Buddha-nature and so you are automatically Zhen-tong and not Ran-tong - which is the pure emptiness doctrine.

 

The point about other religions/school of thought is that they start in a different place to Buddhism. They start with what is seen as ultimately real ... which in a theology is, of course, God (or the Tao for taoism). This is not some kind of mistake - it is a different way of looking at things. As the ultimately real is ineffable - it cannot be expressed directly in words or concepts - then who is to say calling it God or Tao is wrong. And if you say there is nothing ultimately real then where does compassion come from? If it is just part of samsara then compassion is illusory and that is a bit difficult for mahayana.

 

I think its important to remember that Buddha did not say that there were no gods but that they are not suitable objects for refuge. In these terms even if you achieve the bliss of union with Indra or Brahma because the attachment of pride still exists you will eventually (possibly after eons) fall from grace into the hell realms. Its rather like stopping off at the pub on the way to church. Enjoyable but in the end leaving you with a bad headache.

Edited September 22, 2009 by apepch7

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajra,

I feel you are arguing from a purely Rang-tong view when you talk about reification in relation to teh Tao and so on, - while anyone who practices tantra is through the recognition of buddha-nature automatically Shen-tong. See quote below:

from here:

 

http://www.khandro.net/doctrine_philo_views.htm

 

Yes, that's true. I don't find that the state of realization is the one true self supporting reality, but merely just the result of seeing through everything with the help of dependent origination/emptiness of all phenomena and consciousness. I'm also saying that there is not one single source for everything that was whole and complete at the beginning, which is what Taoism seems to be saying, somewhat like the impersonal Brahman of Vedanta. If that were so, then how do we have such suffering come from that which is already whole and complete? This was the Buddhas point in subverting the universal Self doctrine. That a whole bunch of lies cannot come from an ultimate Truth.

 

And if you say there is nothing ultimately real then where does compassion come from? If it is just part of samsara then compassion is illusory and that is a bit difficult for mahayana.

.

 

Compassion is the result of seeing interconnectivity of dependent origination, so it as well originates dependently and is not self supporting or an essence of some sort.

 

The positive aspects of the mind, such as generosity and compassion, as well as lucidity, illumination, wisdom... etc. are inherent only in as much as mind and all phenomena are inherently empty of inherent existence. Thus all this is also relative in as much as relativity is inherently empty, thus wisdom is ultimate in the constant seeing of the emptiness of the relative and is not a self standing ultimate as if Cosmos was not a sum of it's parts and no more than that. Cosmos is not it's own living entity, just like all the minds in the cosmos are not one living entity and they originate dependent upon all other dependently originated things add infinitum. Thus infinite regress and no roof top concept.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[vsaluki]

As a Buddhist, I want to not have any more unconscious rebirths and have no more psychological suffering, ever, ever again.

 

Okay, new day. Lets try again. I'm trying to understand the problem that you are trying to solve with your approach. As I see it, the central issues are suffering, free will, and other minds. Your system has started with the idea that these problems must be solved and so a religion was invented to solve them. It reminds me of a case of curve fitting where you have certain data points and then you evolve a method or theory that covers the data points. Then you declare that your theory is correct because the data points are covered. They recently did that at the University of Colorado with solar cycles. A woman from India worked with the past solar cycles and declared that she had a model that was 98% accurate. Problem is, the first time she tried to use it to predict, it fell absolutely flat on it's face.

 

But let's start with the problem you are trying to solve. It seems to me that the "life is suffering" problem is your central axiom. It's like the hub around which you are building a wheel. Then in attacking that problem you also want to deal with the problems of free will and other minds. Okay, but personally, I'm not that interested in the hub as the central focus point for a religion. I don't experience life as suffering. Yes, there is a little suffering occassionally, but so what. It's just a phenomena. I'd be curious to know what happens in Buddhism after you solve the suffering problem. Seems like you are left with rather dead flat landscape. Ever try to watch a movie where nothing goes wrong? Ever wonder why people don't make movies like that? It also looks like the whole, "everybody is suffering. I have to save them with my compassion", thing is just another huge ego trip. It reminds me of the story of some Buddhist monks that went to the pet store and bought a bunch of fish. Then they went to the shore and started turning them loose. In the meantime, the seagulls started to attack the fish and the monks tried desperately to shoo them away. They were essentially taking sides in a natural process and they thought that it was somehow benevolent. To me, they were idiots. Is that what they got from their years of meditation?

 

You seem to be concerned with the idea that with a unative god model there is someone to blame for suffering. And you want to be able to blame yourself and your karma for your suffering. I personally don't care about placing blame for suffering. It is what it is and it's source is the same source as the source of all phenomena. So what?

 

Like I said, you have basically invented a religion designed to answer your questions and as long as it does that you think it must be right. But I don't believe your answers. And I think that the obscurity of your syntax is meant to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. One thing that I like about Lao Tzu is that he never pretends to have answers for things for which he has no answers. He gives you what he has and he's quite contented with what he has.

 

No it doesn't. This arises because of that, and that arises because of that other... so on and so forth. The power of causation is not some eternal will, but causation itself without beginning.

 

Can you not see what a load of bull that is? You are using "arises" as another word for "caused by" or "created by". But you have yet to explain how it is that this, that and the other are able to cause or create. You say that the power of causation is causation. You say that we don't have to be able to explain it because it has always been that way. I say that you are talking pure nonsense. I say that there is nothing that corresponds to your words. You are lost in your own words, and you think you have meaning. You don't. You drew a map and you said "this is reality". It's not. You say that it's true because of your meditative experiences. I say that your meditative experiences are just more empty phenomena produced by the same source that produces all of your other phenomena, including suffering.

 

No, your just not understanding the meaning of the question. If God is the substratum of all things, then when all phenomena dissolve at the end of the universe, then you will just dissolve into this God, to be what?

 

There is no "end of the universe". The universe is simply phenomena. Does the creative source that is self stop creating at some point? I don't know. But I'm not going to make up answers because I don't know. When you say that "you will dissolve into this god", that is not correct. I am already dissoved into that source of creation. I am not the phenomena. I don't care if the phenomena dissolves or not.

 

So... I suffer because he wills it. Great! All my problems are his.

 

You are thinking dualistically. What is it that suffers. There is no seperate self apart from the creative source that is being told "okay, vsaluki, I want you to suffer". Suffering is phenomena. It is an integral part of Self. And Self is God. If there is suffering it is not imposed, it is simply experienced by the very source that created it. It is not punishment or residue from past lifetimes. It is simply an integral part of this life. Judging it as evil or brutal or undesireable is again an empty phenomena. And it is a limited judgement made by an empty phenomena. The experience and the judgement are the same stuff coming from the same place. What Loa Tze would tell us is that it's all okay. Just take it in. Don't try to fix it. Buddhists want to delude themselves and think that there is something to fix and that they can be the source of the fix. It's all ego. Nothing is fixed. Suffering and joy, happiness and sadness, pleasure and pain, the whole panorama of contrast, go on, and there is absolutely nothing that any Buddhist can do about it.

Edited September 22, 2009 by vsaluki

[Apech]

 

Compassion is the result of seeing interconnectivity of dependent origination, so it as well originates dependently and is not self supporting or an essence of some sort.

 

The positive aspects of the mind, such as generosity and compassion, as well as lucidity, illumination, wisdom... etc. are inherent only in as much as mind and all phenomena are inherently empty of inherent existence. Thus all this is also relative in as much as relativity is inherently empty, thus wisdom is ultimate in the constant seeing of the emptiness of the relative and is not a self standing ultimate as if Cosmos was not a sum of it's parts and no more than that. Cosmos is not it's own living entity, just like mind is not it's own living entity and originates dependent upon all other dependently originated things add infinitum. Thus infinite regress and no roof top concept.

 

 

Sorry but the bits in bold are incomprehensible to me.

 

What do you mean by Cosmos?