Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Stigweard]

Sorry. I will be more mindful in the future.

 

 

Play fair Mr Marbles.

 

I'm not a Buddhist but I would say 'previous universe'

 

Nice answer

 

Can we say instead then:

 

"Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth.

The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe.

The Universe self-perpetuates via dependent origination."

 

In other words, this Universe gives rise or even gives birth to the next Universe.

[dwai]

Yes, yes ... I know what you are saying ... truly

 

Trust me I am not trying to "latch on" to anything, this is just an attempt for clarity. Call it Stigweard's silly little game if you want to

 

So for you Buddhists, could you please fill in the blank:

 

Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth.

The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe.

The Universe is dependently originated from _______________________.

 

 

I wasn't refering to you being among those who "latch on".

Your views on this matter resonate quite well with mine...

[forestofemptiness]

Humanity is dependently originated with the Universe.

The Earth is dependently originated with the Universe.

The Universe is dependently originated with earth and humanity.

 

Sorry, but I took issue with the phrasing!

[dwai]

Humanity is dependently originated with the Universe.

The Earth is dependently originated with the Universe.

The Universe is dependently originated with earth and humanity.

 

Sorry, but I took issue with the phrasing!

 

And they all depend on Consciousness

[majc]

My confusion is dependently originated with this thread.

[Stigweard]

Humanity is dependently originated with the Universe.

The Earth is dependently originated with the Universe.

The Universe is dependently originated with earth and humanity.

 

Sorry, but I took issue with the phrasing!

No that's quite OK ... could you please expand on your reasoning?

 

 

And they all depend on Consciousness

So are you saying that Life, the Universe and Everything dependently originates with consciousness?

 

[forestofemptiness]

[dwai]

No that's quite OK ... could you please expand on your reasoning?

 

 

 

So are you saying that Life, the Universe and Everything dependently originates with consciousness?

 

 

I am saying that everything that dependently originates does so in conjunction with Consciousness...but even that is simply a superimposition of a framework (any framework that produces Name and Form or as it is called in Vedanta -- Nama Rupa) on that very Objectless Consciousness...there is no other....tad ekam (that Alone)

 

I had written a short article on this, capturing my discussion on this matter with a friend (not complete but the idea is conveyed I think):

 

http://www.medhajour...sophy/1015.html

Edited November 11, 2010 by dwai

[forestofemptiness]

[goldisheavy]

If I wanted to play games, I could say that the attitude that fixed attitudes are an obscuration is itself a fixed attitude and an obscuration.

 

It's a good response and not a game. The truth is that no statement can capture Dharma perfectly and every teaching that tries to express Dharma can be improved upon. That's not a game, that's the dance of wisdom. Or you can think of it as an educational game.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Stigweard]

The simplest phrasing of dependent origination is:

 

When this is, that is.

From the arising of this comes the arising of that.

When this isn't, that isn't.

From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

Beautiful ... thank you. It is a very important clarification that you have made.

 

"Since nothing has independent, permanent, or absolute existence (inherent emptiness); all beings and phenomena arise due to countless causes and effects (karma), subject to change or transformation (impermanence) all a false thought born from the One Mind that all beings share (the original nature that is suchness.)"

 

When wind blows, mind shakes tree,

 

When clouds gather, self-nature raises the dust,

 

If one forces clarity on today's matter,

 

It will darken the original man.

 

"This is the functioning of sublime essence. The sublime essence of true mind originally does not move. It is peaceful, tranquil, real, and constant; its sublime function is exposed with the real and constant essence.

 

So, the sublime essence should be attained while being carried with the flow."

 

Mind flows with outer perspectives,

 

Where it flows is unspeakably profound.

 

If one understood the nature of this flowing,

 

Neither joy nor sorrow would be real.

 

"Therefore, whenever it moves or distinguishes things; either going to the east, moving to the west, eating food or putting on clothes, lifting up a spoon or fork, or glancing left or right; these are all representations of the sublime-functioning of the true-mind. Because ordinary-beings are confused, when they dress they assume it is the real action of dressing, and when they eat, they assume that it is the real action of eating; but they are chasing only forms in every matter even though it(True Mind) is with them in everyday life. They just cannot feel it and do not understand it, even though it is in front of their eyes."

 

"For one who understands the self-nature, he would not be deceived while he is moving or distinguishing. Thus here is one Patriarch's gatha,"

 

When it is in the womb it is called a fetus with an energy; when it is born it is called a person; in the eye it is called seeing; in the ears it is called hearing; in the nose it is called smelling; or with the tongue it is called speaking, grabbing things with hands and taking strides with the legs; when it is spread out every-where, it wraps 'round the world' as many times as number the sands of the River Ganges. And, when most concentrated cannot even fill a speck of dust. The one who knows calls this Buddha-nature: But, one who does not know calls this either 'soul' or 'spiritual entity'.

 

Also beautiful ... thank you.

 

So, returning to my little game, can we say:

 

Humanity dependently originates with Earth,

Earth dependently originates with the Universe,

The Universe dependently originates with Buddha-nature.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Words said to be quoted from the Buddha:

 

"I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata both is and is not after dying."

I, Vaccha, am not of this view: "The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying.""

 

Frankly, if the teaching above is accepted as truly Buddhist, then it refutes certain schools that claim the name Buddhist since their teachings are counter to this. No offence meant but obviously various types of Buddhists do not agree among themselves concerning all doctrines; similar to what happens with most or all spiritual teachings of any kind on this planet... thus imo any kind of vehicle must be let go of at some point.

 

Om

 

He's just talking about emptiness. You're reading too much into it. It is a teaching tool meant to stop the proliferation of views. There is no school in Buddhism who's teachings are counter to this except maybe Dark Zen.

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Vaj.,

 

Do I need to get a chisel and hammer and etch this into your brain? Tao is not a thing. Tao is not a thing! Tao is the Way. The Way of a Taoist and the Way of the universe.

 

I said, transcendent of things... You are saying exactly what I said, that it's not a thing, it's beyond things, that means exactly the same thing that I said.

 

Tao is used as a noun only to include all things of the universe.

 

Line 1, Chapter 1, Tao Te Ching, Lin Yutang translation:

 

The Tao that can be told of is not the Absolute Tao;

 

"All things of the universe" include everything before the beginning (of this universe) and everything after the end (of this universe). It is not a thing in and of itself. The Tao that can be spoken (the noun usage) is not the eternal Tao. What we speak of is the Way, the Manifest; we cannot speak of the Mystery - that is why it is called the Mystery.

 

In Buddhism we reveal the nature of the mystery thus find liberation through insight, revealing that there is really no mystery.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

OK let's use your words then ... "dependently originated phenomena is absolutely everything" ... therefore dependent origination is the one constant of absolutely everything ... therefore dependent origination is a constant.

 

We could also say that emptiness, due to dependent origination, is a constant.

 

You're taking my words out of context, thus missing the point. Emptiness is also empty of inherent existence, thus they talk about the emptiness of emptiness as in, neither can emptiness be established as true and real from it's own side. So once again, no... dependent origination is not a true existence, it's just an insight into relativity. It's the way of things, but it's not things. It cannot be considered as you say with the Tao, that the Tao is everything. That all things are the Tao, it's not like this with Dependent origination, as it's merely an insight that liberates completely without remainder.

 

 

All phenomena is dependently originated right? Which could lead the mind needing attachments to cling to dependent origination as an ultimate truth, that D.O. is the source of life. But because of the insight of dependent origination it is in itself empty of substance right?

 

So could we perhaps say, and please excuse the simplicity of what I am saying:

 

Humans are dependently originated from nature, i.e. the biology of the planet Earth?

 

 

 

And could we say that the planet Earth is dependently originated from Universal nature?

 

And could we say that Universal nature manifests through the process of dependent origination?

 

OK I need your words here ... please humor me with this ... what does dependent origination depend on?

 

If I said, "Dependent origination depends on the way of dependent origination". How, in 20 words or less (imagine you are writing someone a quick line of poetry), would you correct or better articulate that statement?

 

 

You can't say that, because you are making dependent origination a self, thus you are missing the insight of emptiness. Dependent origination is an insight into how things work, into the process, but the process is empty, thus dependent origination does not truly exist either. The insight of dependent origination arises dependent upon seeing the emptiness of things and vice versa. Emptiness does not mean nothingness though, so it's not the same kind of meditative absorption into the sphere of nothingness that is talked about in Taoist meditation. But anyway, the INSIGHT of dependent origination arises dependent upon the experiential insight of emptiness and the experiential insight of emptiness arises dependent upon the insight of dependent origination. Dependent origination does not transcend things, it merely frees you from things.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I'm getting intense flashbacks of past "discussions" right here on TTB...

 

DO is simply a tool to show that phenomena are empty of self-nature and self-existence. The two components of any dependent origination are the "object" and the "subject"

 

Dig a little deeper and then we find that this "subject" exists...despite of objects not existing (ie no thoughts in meditation but subject still remains). This subject is pure consciousness (objectless).

 

Those who latch onto DO and fixate on it as the "end-all be-all" are just deluding themselves, imho. This (delusion) stems from half-baked understanding of Buddhist teachings as well as theravada dogma.

 

Then why would the Buddha teach to transcend the samadhi of infinite consciousness? Why would he say that consciousness as well originates dependently and is empty of inherent existence? It's all over the Suttas, and I've quoted this fact many times here. You absolutely don't want to get what dependent origination means because you are strongly fixed on being born and raised a Hindu from India in the Shaiva sampradaya, you are very attached to this persona.

 

The Buddhas teaching reveals that there as well is no ultimate subject. It's written all over the pali texts, and the mahayana texts and the way you interpret the Parinirvana Sutra is completely out of context and merely wishful thinking.

 

Believing in an ultimate ground of being that transcends everything but is consciousness is a fixation and what the Buddha called the extreme of Eternalism. He wouldn't have argued this truth if he didn't have that insight.

 

Theravadin Buddhists get what the Buddha taught, Shaivites do not, they get what Shaivism teaches which is an entirely different understanding of how the universe works, as well as an entirely different definition of liberation.

 

Anyway... any talking with you is useless since you cannot debate without resorting personal insults.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Emptiness and dependent origination are not things, so how can they be constant? In fact, dependent origination and emptiness are really just concepts that we add onto our experience. The trouble is when we divorce them from their context and take them to be things in themselves.

 

 

Right, they are experiential insights, but not things, though they are the understanding of the way of things that liberates one from things, the way the liberated flow of things does. As all things are liberated by nature, being empty of inherent existence, thus Samsara rightly understood is Nirvana.

[Vajrahridaya]

The four-fold negation is a basic and key premise commonly accepted to be from the Buddha and imo it refutes certain forms of Buddhism that have come up with all sorts of teachings counter to it.

 

Also, what you say implies that the Buddha had no more need to say or do anything...(after enlightenment) yet He spoke and taught of the four-fold negation - a fact which can't be glossed over or made moot, for if it could then any "basic premise" of Buddhism could be, including whatever you allude to.

 

Om

 

What forms of Buddhism run counter to the four-fold negation? I can't think of any other than Dark Zen.

[Vajrahridaya]

Here's an article that will clarify some doubts and questions around the concept of "Self" (of the Self vs No-Self debate which is prominent in the discussions between Buddhists and Vedantins, with it's roots in India).

The reason I bring this up again and again is because Buddhism is a reaction to Vedantic/Upanishadic vision and what the Buddha taught as being Non-Self (Anatta) was merely another tool to lead the seeker down the path of discovering the "true identity" by methodically discarding all that is not (neti-neti)

 

http://www.medhajournal.com/resident-philosopher/1041-mistranslations-of-central-upanishadic-terms.html

 

 

I will include a relevant section here:

 

This is just taking up a formless samadhi as absolute, which the Buddha taught against. I don't understand how you can say you've studied what the Buddha taught when it was made clear that he had these formless samadhis, including the samadhi of infinite consciousness, and saw it as impermanent, even if one were to absorb into it for eons.

 

His insight into dependent origination and emptiness came from experiencing these samadhis and going past them through this insight, considered the 9th jhana beyond form and formless samadhi states, including beyond infinite consciousness.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, yes ... I know what you are saying ... truly

 

Trust me I am not trying to "latch on" to anything, this is just an attempt for clarity. Call it Stigweard's silly little game if you want to

 

So for you Buddhists, could you please fill in the blank:

 

Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth.

The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe.

The Universe is dependently originated from ___the left over energies residing in dormancy during the pralaya (singularity) from the previous universe____________________.

 

 

The previous universe is whats in the blank according to Buddhists, there is no transcendent ultimate truth in Buddhism. Buddhism is not a top down philosophy where we take a transcendent ultimate and build the framework on top of that, saying that the transcendent ultimate is the basis for everything, beyond thought and mysterious.

 

This is not same insight into the nature of things as what the Buddha taught. What I filled in the blank with is talked about in Buddhist cosmology, but it's not talked about in any other spiritual philosophy or cosmology. Only Buddhism talks like this and reveals like this as a religion that is.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm not a Buddhist but I would say 'previous universe'

 

And the prize goes to Adept!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Play fair Mr Marbles.

 

 

 

Nice answer

 

Can we say instead then:

 

"Humanity is dependently originated from the Earth.

The Earth is dependently originated from the Universe.

The Universe self-perpetuates via dependent origination."

 

In other words, this Universe gives rise or even gives birth to the next Universe.

 

It's an endless cycle without inherent substance or selfhood. It's just dynamic creativity without origin or self.

[Vajrahridaya]

And they all depend on Consciousness

 

The Buddha taught that consciousness as well arises dependently and is not a self. Thus Shaivism and Buddhism are not in cahoots. They teach different things. So, you either agree with the Buddha, or you agree with Shankara, and you cannot agree with both, except on a superficial level of some of the benefits of meditation and yoga.

 

Consciousness arises due a kind of fermentation of the elements as they cycle in each moment. Consciousness is not a basis for everything, it's just the most important element that arises within the cycle of dependent origination because without that element, there would be no sentience and no liberation as well.

[Vajrahridaya]

It's a good response and not a game. The truth is that no statement can capture Dharma perfectly and every teaching that tries to express Dharma can be improved upon. That's not a game, that's the dance of wisdom. Or you can think of it as an educational game.

 

I agree, because there is no fixed ultimate with the insight of dharma.

[Vajrahridaya]

So are you saying that Life, the Universe and Everything dependently originates with consciousness?

 

 

I'm doing this because Surfing Buddha's question was on the difference between these two philosophies, NOT to convert anyone.

 

THIS IS FOR YOU SURFING BUDDHA!!!!

 

What is Consciousness? What is responsible for all forms and apperances? Since we're talking of Buddhism you must understand some of it's principles.

 

It classifies consciousness in to 8 levels. 1-5 are the sense organs (eyes,ears,nose,tongue,touch.) Then there is the 6th, 7th and 8th. "The 6th (discriminative mind) is the ideational consciousness which is divided into one that comprehends and one of images. The 7th is the mind consciousness (which is the intellect) which is the original cognitive awareness and instinctive activity associated with self and life. The 8th is the storehouse consciousness that includes both mind and the objects , the basis of the nature of the mind, which is the root of the spiritual and the material world."

 

The 6th consciousness is the discriminative mind (our thinking mind.)Everything we see, hear, feel, smell, taste, think, is the working of this. It is the reason everything isn't all a blob of sense phenomena. It's functioning stems from the 7th and then 8th consciousnesses. They are all the same consciousness.

 

Mind is everywhere. Don't think its inside your body. It is reality. It is all phenomena.

 

"Since nothing has independent, permanent, or absolute existence (inherent emptiness); all beings and phenomena arise due to countless causes and effects (karma), subject to change or transformation (impermanence) all a false thought born from the One Mind that all beings share (the original nature that is suchness.)"

 

What is experiencing this existence? What is that fundamental awareness (Mind-Ground) that has always been there (which is responsible for all forms and appearances)whether we are enlightened or not? To figure this out is the point of cultivation.

 

From "Sublime Functioning of True Mind:"

 

True nature of the self-as-it-is neither excessive nor deficient, whether it is in every ordinary-being, or in every Shravaka in every Pratyekabuddha, or in every Bodhisattva and Buddha. It has never been born before nor will it perish. It is always as it has been; self-nature already satisfied in all the virtues and merits of itself.

 

"Therefore, according to these Sutras and Shastras, we can conclude that the true mind itself is surpassing the cause-and-effect and past and present"

 

There is no indigent-being who does not have divine nature of enlightenment. Not even a slight difference from Buddha; if this true self-nature were awakened, originally there is no birth. Where can the refuge place be? It is not perplexed, but divinely radiant. It is wakeful awareness which has no place to come. It has no place to come, no place to go. Just know it is void and tranquil essence.

 

When wind blows, mind shakes tree,

 

When clouds gather, self-nature raises the dust,

 

If one forces clarity on today's matter,

 

It will darken the original man.

 

"This is the functioning of sublime essence. The sublime essence of true mind originally does not move. It is peaceful, tranquil, real, and constant; its sublime function is exposed with the real and constant essence.

 

So, the sublime essence should be attained while being carried with the flow."

 

Mind flows with outer perspectives,

 

Where it flows is unspeakably profound.

 

If one understood the nature of this flowing,

 

Neither joy nor sorrow would be real.

 

"Therefore, whenever it moves or distinguishes things; either going to the east, moving to the west, eating food or putting on clothes, lifting up a spoon or fork, or glancing left or right; these are all representations of the sublime-functioning of the true-mind. Because ordinary-beings are confused, when they dress they assume it is the real action of dressing, and when they eat, they assume that it is the real action of eating; but they are chasing only forms in every matter even though it(True Mind) is with them in everyday life. They just cannot feel it and do not understand it, even though it is in front of their eyes."

 

"For one who understands the self-nature, he would not be deceived while he is moving or distinguishing. Thus here is one Patriarch's gatha,"

 

When it is in the womb it is called a fetus with an energy; when it is born it is called a person; in the eye it is called seeing; in the ears it is called hearing; in the nose it is called smelling; or with the tongue it is called speaking, grabbing things with hands and taking strides with the legs; when it is spread out every-where, it wraps 'round the world' as many times as number the sands of the River Ganges. And, when most concentrated cannot even fill a speck of dust. The one who knows calls this Buddha-nature: But, one who does not know calls this either 'soul' or 'spiritual entity'.

 

I generally don't consider this proof of one mind which many Zen teachers talk about. The mind only school of Buddhism as it appears from India into Tibet says that we all have individual store house consciousness' of beginningless origin, not that everything is one mind. The Dalai Lama said that we all have unique mind streams without beginning that all co-dependently originate universe after universe, as well as each other. Thus even these unique mind streams are empty of inherent substance, or soul. Thus Buddhanature as well cannot be established as inherently existent. Neither is Buddhanature a grand oneness.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Vajrahridaya