Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Apech]

What is Buddha nature?

 

 

 

You have to be careful when talking about Buddha-nature and Madhyamaka philosophy and I am sure that Vaj. will point this out. There are two distinct views called Rangtong and Zhentong (or Shentong). I believe that Dzogchen is Rangtong - and this view upholds the emptiness of everything and does not admit anything beyond that - it could be termed "emptiness of self" applied to all phenomena. This school does not teach Buddha-nature in the sense of some kind of essential nature but only as referring generally to the potential for enlightenment.

 

Zhentong

 

The Zhentong view could be termed "empty of other" and holds that ultimate reality while empty, is full of the luminous qualities of enlightenment - which could be said to be Buddha-nature. To a Zhentong practitioner the dharma-kaya is ultimately real while being empty of any phenomena, and while it could be said to 'cause' or allow the arising of the phenomena, it is untouched in its own essence by them. Learned people have said that while Rangtong is the pure view of Madhyamaka anyone who practices Vajrayana tantra is by its nature practicing a Zhentong teaching.

[C T]

An overview of Rangtong and Shentong, Emptiness and Buddha Nature (from Traleg Rinpoche - Buddhist scholar/teacher):

 

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/fall/emptinessandbuddhanature.html

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

I think the point here is really the inner experience. If one is clinging to a personal identity of all! Then one is really just expanding ego infinitely... which is completely possible through the energy practices. Even if one is outwardly worshiping a being higher than the one worshiping, there is this secret ego clinging, that is deep, blissful, even calm, and powerful. But, it's not liberation.

 

So really it's about the middle between Rangtong and Shentong view experientially, but the expression of it is according to the needs of the individual.

[Marblehead]

Hi Vaj,

 

I hope you get liberated soon so you can stop talking about it. Hehehe.

[dwai]

No, the difference between the two is subtle and deep. I understand it and experience it, having experienced the samadhi of infinite consciousness plenty of times, and know the difference between this formless samadhi of infinite, faceless consciousness and the buddha insight of d.o./e. It is not a superimposition upon a single omnipresent consciousness. The insight is different, thus it's not an absorption into a single pre-existing one, but rather an insight surpassing all the experiences surrounding yogic practice, liberating one from all, even the pesky tendency to cling to an ultimate sense of Self. The resulting cosmology is different, as well as the resulting way of being in the cosmos. As well as what happens at the end of a cosmic eon, a Buddha is not re-absorbed into a faceless consciousness which is really just an infinite concept that one is still clinging to.

 

The experience of infinite consciousness and it's interpretation as ultimate leads to a rooftop, a plateau to identify with, a crutch, while the experience and interpretation of infinite, endless mindstreams does not lead to a rootop but rather infinite regress and no plateau to identify with, no crutch.

 

Why are infinite interconnected streams of endless consciousness better than one single pool of infinite consciousness?

Edited November 16, 2010 by dwai

[3bob]

Why are infinite interconnected streams of endless consciousness better than one single pool of infinite consciousness?

 

Btw, in reference to the particular tattvas chart (pdf file attached below) Parasiva is beyond all categories including consciousness: (pure or otherwise)

 

dws_r8_charts-tattvas.pdf

 

Om

Edited November 16, 2010 by 3bob

[dwai]

Btw, in reference to the particular tattvas chart (pdf file attached below) Parasiva is beyond all categories including consciousness: (pure or otherwise)

 

dws_r8_charts-tattvas.pdf

 

Om

 

There are minor differences of categorization between Advaita and Shaiva traditions. My understanding on this matter is that Parasiva and Pure Objectless Consciousness are one and the same. Because Pure Objectless Consciousness IS beyond all categories (nama-rupa) and therefore Non-Dual absolute.

 

Depending on whether one approaches from a Dvaita or Advaita perspective (even within the various Shaiva schools), the two are either separate (dvaita) or same (advaita).

 

Thanks for sharing an excellent chart btw.

Edited November 17, 2010 by dwai

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Hi Vaj,

 

I hope you get liberated soon so you can stop talking about it. Hehehe.

 

 

 

+100

[Vajrahridaya]

Why are infinite interconnected streams of endless consciousness better than one single pool of infinite consciousness?

 

Because your actually seeing the particulars, what the pool really is beyond it's appearance or experience in a samadhi state. Through this insight, you are going to gain wisdom into how and what liberation actually is, and it's not merging with this blanketing samadhi experience which arises dependent upon the fact of emptiness, due to intense focus or surrender, but without recognizing emptiness and d.o.

 

If the Buddha thought that merging with a uniform infinite consciousness would cause liberation, he would have taught this, but since it doesn't, he taught something else. He also taught that the 4 formless samadhi states of infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, infinite space and neither perception nor non-perception all arose dependently and are empty of inherent self. Most of the worlds religions, revolve around one, all or another of these deep states of absorption and therefore only have insight into how to get into higher states of rebirth, but not actual moksha even if they claim it is moksha, it really is not.

 

The Buddha taught this, Nagarjuna taught this and so does the Dalai Lama in various books.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Btw, in reference to the particular tattvas chart (pdf file attached below) Parasiva is beyond all categories including consciousness: (pure or otherwise)

 

dws_r8_charts-tattvas.pdf

 

Om

 

Yes, that's just identifying with the absorption state of neither perception nor non-perception/beyond being and non-being and is not an insight that will lead to complete liberation from unconscious rebirth and recycling as there is still a deep and subtle ego clinging going on.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Free of Samasara, they travel back and forth between the Samsaric dream and the Ultimate Reality. Buddhas do the same thing

 

No they do not. In Buddhic teachings, there is no, "absolute reality" that is a stand alone beyond everything that self exists and is absolute in and of itself. This is a Samsaric belief and experience, though it can be very, very high and lead to great virtue, it's not liberation.

 

What a Buddha realizes is that Samsara truly understood is the experience of Nirvana. This view of an ultimate reality beyond everything but is the support of and one with everything is still dualistic and doesn't really make sense if one were to compare it to the Buddhas non-dual teachings of dependent origination/emptiness (neither one, nor many).

 

 

So no, I don't agree with you that many of the Christian mystics, or Islamic mystics reach the same level of insight into the nature of things as Buddhas.

 

Though yes... in meditation you will see many beings and many realms that are all high and wonderful and they will offer blessings along the way.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[manitou]

Maybe a component of enlightenment is to make our way through the structure of any one religion and find the oneness at the end of the path, the place of I AM. At the furthest outreaches, it seems that all great religions end up in the room where all paths meet. I don't think it much matters which path we choose - as long as we get to the place of peace we all intuit in our mind's eye. I condsider myself a Taoist in theory,only because I have studied the TTC for 20 years. I have not found the need to engage in any of the separate or included practices, although I'm sure my path would have been shorter had I chosen to engage in one. I now sit in the room where all paths meet...on a good day. I AM, at the moment.

[dwai]

Because your actually seeing the particulars, what the pool really is beyond it's appearance or experience in a samadhi state. Through this insight, you are going to gain wisdom into how and what liberation actually is, and it's not merging with this blanketing samadhi experience which arises dependent upon the fact of emptiness, due to intense focus or surrender, but without recognizing emptiness and d.o.

 

If the Buddha thought that merging with a uniform infinite consciousness would cause liberation, he would have taught this, but since it doesn't, he taught something else. He also taught that the 4 formless samadhi states of infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, infinite space and neither perception nor non-perception all arose dependently and are empty of inherent self. Most of the worlds religions, revolve around one, all or another of these deep states of absorption and therefore only have insight into how to get into higher states of rebirth, but not actual moksha even if they claim it is moksha, it really is not.

 

The Buddha taught this, Nagarjuna taught this and so does the Dalai Lama in various books.

 

 

You make a lot of assumptions and not a single sentence you form is lucid.

 

But I can see that you still haven't grasped what "emptiness" truly is. Emptiness IS Pure Objectless Consciousness...

 

The Buddha didn't, neither did Nagarjuna make any stand vis-a-vis Alaya or otherwise. They (especially Nagarjuna) used prasanga to avoid that. And you keep tripping on the word "self". Pure Objectless Consciousness is not a "self" or a "Self"...it's not a "he" or a "she" but a that, it. It is called Atman and called Brahman but it's just a label...not a descriptive (like the Tao or Nirvana). It is called Atman because it is what remains after all others have been reduced to nothingness.

 

 

 

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Maybe a component of enlightenment is to make our way through the structure of any one religion and find the oneness at the end of the path, the place of I AM.

 

 

In Buddhism, oneness is not the goal. Neither is the state of I AM. You are talking about Hinduism which thinks that every path leads to the same goal or that enlightenment is a one all catch phrase. This is very popular in New Age movements that take phrases out of context without deeper study of the context and think they all mean the same thing.

 

Buddhist enlightenment is defined differently, not only conceptually but in experiential inner form as well.

 

Yes, there is bliss, yes there is an inner sense of freedom, but not identity with the all in Buddhist enlightenment. The state of I AM is considered merely a stage along the way and can become a trap in fact as liberation from unconscious rebirth is still not realized. The Buddha talks about the many traps and considers the I AM stage as a trap, or sign, it depends upon your insight or if you get stuck there.

 

You might want to study up, if you care to know the difference.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

But I can see that you still haven't grasped what "emptiness" truly is. Emptiness IS Pure Objectless Consciousness...

 

No, it is not. It never has been. You really need to stop reading Hindu propaganda concerning Buddhist texts and read from real Buddhists versions of the texts.

 

The Buddha didn't, neither did Nagarjuna make any stand vis-a-vis Alaya or otherwise. They (especially Nagarjuna) used prasanga to avoid that.

 

Oh yes they did! Nagarjuna said that your path only leads to the edge of Samsara in no uncertain terms, according to Buddhism that is, not according to Hinduism.

 

The Buddha said many times and in many places which I've quoted for you in the past. You are creating an identity around objectless consciousness, you are not understanding the meaning of emptiness as you are placing your pre-conditions over it, thus you are not emptying your pre-concepts before reading Buddhist texts of which you are very under studied in.

 

And you keep tripping on the word "self". Pure Objectless Consciousness is not a "self" or a "Self"...it's not a "he" or a "she" but a that, it. It is called Atman and called Brahman but it's just a label...not a descriptive (like the Tao or Nirvana). It is called Atman because it is what remains after all others have been reduced to nothingness.

 

This is still an entirely different cosmology Dwai. There is no substratum in Buddhist cosmology. The Buddha makes no reference to one and even say's that to identify any of the formless samadhi states as a substratum would be a trap and a mistake, which includes infinite faceless consciousness, even nothingness or infinite space, even the samadhi of beyond perception and non-perception. You are still taking up this objectless consciousness as the ground of all being, thus a "self" of all, forget labels, it's an inner state of clinging concerning a meditative absorption thus emptiness is not recognized and neither is the experiential meaning of pratityasamutpada (interdependent origination).

 

Dwai, I've read all the important Vedantin texts. All the texts by Shankaracharya and the Maharamayana or Vasisthas Yoga in the big version. I've read so many Vedantin texts and have so many of them in my library. You won't find one Buddhist scholar that will agree with your assumption Dwai. Only Hindu's will because they don't see the meaning of dependent origination. Hindu's get stuck at oneness and thus will be re-absorbed at the end of a cosmic eon to be recycled again in the next cosmos, either that or get stuck in a formless bliss realm for a while. The Buddha does teach all this.

 

Hindu and Buddhist cosmology are different Dwai. Every Buddhist scholar knows this and says this. You are stuck in oneness.

 

P.S.

 

In the Vasisthas Yoga, Vasishta comes across a being who survived the last cosmic pralaya, neither of them know how he did it and they both say, "It's the will of infinite consciousness". The thing is, is that Buddhas know directly how to survive the cosmic pralaya and stay aware past it, as Buddhas don't make that intellectual or experiential excuse for ignorance. Only Buddhism takes the understanding of karma this deep and doesn't get stuck at oneness merge with all stage. Taoism might as well, though I'm not completely convinced, but it might in certain individuals.

 

But, with your understanding as it is, you will also be re-absorbed at prayala (crunch) time into this infinite consciousness samadhi. I will not. Liberation really is in the details.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[3bob]

In Buddhism, oneness is not the goal. Neither is the state of I AM. You are talking about Hinduism which thinks that every path leads to the same goal or that enlightenment is a one all catch phrase. This is very popular in New Age movements that take phrases out of context without deeper study of the context and think they all mean the same thing.

 

Buddhist enlightenment is defined differently, not only conceptually but in experiential inner form as well.

 

Yes, there is bliss, yes there is an inner sense of freedom, but not identity with the all in Buddhist enlightenment. The state of I AM is considered merely a stage along the way and can become a trap in fact as liberation from unconscious rebirth is still not realized. The Buddha talks about the many traps and considers the I AM stage as a trap, or sign, it depends upon your insight or if you get stuck there.

 

You might want to study up, if you care to know the difference.

 

"You might want to study up, if you care to know the difference"

 

VJ, To really "know" beyond what can be gained and what can be lost is not a matter of study or knowledge in an intellectual or mental sense, thus I feel that most any of us, including yourself, could end up "stinking of Zen" or in other words falling into the "trap" that such alludes to by following such a recommendation.

 

Om

Edited November 17, 2010 by 3bob

[dwai]

No, it is not. It never has been. You really need to stop reading Hindu propaganda concerning Buddhist texts and read from real Buddhists versions of the texts.

 

 

 

Oh yes they did! Nagarjuna said that your path only leads to the edge of Samsara in no uncertain terms, according to Buddhism that is, not according to Hinduism.

 

The Buddha said many times and in many places which I've quoted for you in the past. You are creating an identity around objectless consciousness, you are not understanding the meaning of emptiness as you are placing your pre-conditions over it, thus you are not emptying your pre-concepts before reading Buddhist texts of which you are very under studied in.

 

 

 

This is still an entirely different cosmology Dwai. There is no substratum in Buddhist cosmology. The Buddha makes no reference to one and even say's that to identify any of the formless samadhi states as a substratum would be a trap and a mistake, which includes infinite faceless consciousness, even nothingness or infinite space, even the samadhi of beyond perception and non-perception. You are still taking up this objectless consciousness as the ground of all being, thus a "self" of all, forget labels, it's an inner state of clinging concerning a meditative absorption thus emptiness is not recognized and neither is the experiential meaning of pratityasamutpada (interdependent origination).

 

Dwai, I've read all the important Vedantin texts. All the texts by Shankaracharya and the Maharamayana or Vasisthas Yoga in the big version. I've read so many Vedantin texts and have so many of them in my library. You won't find one Buddhist scholar that will agree with your assumption Dwai. Only Hindu's will because they don't see the meaning of dependent origination. Hindu's get stuck at oneness and thus will be re-absorbed at the end of a cosmic eon to be recycled again in the next cosmos, either that or get stuck in a formless bliss realm for a while. The Buddha does teach all this.

 

Hindu and Buddhist cosmology are different Dwai. Every Buddhist scholar knows this and says this. You are stuck in oneness.

 

P.S.

 

In the Vasisthas Yoga, Vasishta comes across a being who survived the last cosmic pralaya, neither of them know how he did it and they both say, "It's the will of infinite consciousness". The thing is, is that Buddhas know directly how to survive the cosmic pralaya and stay aware past it, as Buddhas don't make that intellectual or experiential excuse for ignorance. Only Buddhism takes the understanding of karma this deep and doesn't get stuck at oneness merge with all stage. Taoism might as well, though I'm not completely convinced, but it might in certain individuals.

 

But, with your understanding as it is, you will also be re-absorbed at prayala (crunch) time into this infinite consciousness samadhi. I will not. Liberation really is in the details.

 

you are so obsessed with seeing differences and standing out that you miss the crux of things.

There is no substratum....there only is that one. Whether one chooses to call it emptiness or Tao or Brahman or Atman is completely irrelevant!

[C T]

 

This is not a matter of study or knowledge in an intellectual or mental sense VJ, which indicates modus operandi.

Be nice to know what sort of sense you are implying here, 3Bob.

 

Your one-liners have been rather baffling of late. Sorry to say so. Not sure about others, but its hard to respond when one is left guessing what you are actually trying to convey. Can you be more specific? That would really help. Seriously. And i am not looking for scriptural texts here either... merely wish to hear your thoughts and reflections, things that are inside your head, as you write these comments. I know you are responding to VJ's post, but as i can also read your response, i just feel it to be more comfortable when the possibilities of misunderstanding your single-lined comments are reduced to a bare minimum.

 

thank you!

[Vajrahridaya]

you are so obsessed with seeing differences and standing out that you miss the crux of things.

There is no substratum....there only is that one. Whether one chooses to call it emptiness or Tao or Brahman or Atman is completely irrelevant!

 

No my dear, you are too obsessed to see the crux of it. There is no supreme emptiness that all is one with in Buddhism, there is no "one" that all can be reconciled to. Yes, all things and consciousness is empty equally, but emptiness is empty of self being as well. Really read Nagarjuna from his own side for once instead of that Hindu propaganda about him that you read, which you've linked us too before. For you, everything in actuality IS one supreme faceless consciousness. But, upon looking at the details of how things work, this oneness just won't work, because it doesn't explain how things actually happen. Only infinite regress does and your obsession with "oneness" disallows you to go into infinite regress as "oneness" is your rooftop.

 

For you, this one supreme consciousness actually exists and is all and is itself not caused. In Buddhism, there is not one level of being, consciousness, absorption state of samadhi that is not caused within the spectrum of infinite regress. For you, everything is caused by and exists in one supreme consciousness that itself is not caused. Come on, you can use all the tricks you want, but Shankaracharya say's this, Abhinavagupta says this, Vasagupta says this, Vasistha says this, the Upanishads say this. This is what Vedanta teaches that yes, one supreme consciousness is the substratum of all, then you can say, a substratum as opposed to what? Vedanta doesn't say there is anything as opposed to it, thus it is the substratum, core of all being according to Vedantin cosmology. This just won't work when compared to Buddhist cosmology. It is DIFFERENT, not as an obsession, but as a fact.

 

We are connected, but we are not one. This is what the Buddha teaches that is different from what Vedanta teaches.

 

Now there are states of mind where one experiences a sense of oneness, connection, a merging, but this is not liberation for a Buddha. This is just the state of expanded consciousness that happens due to the fact that all things are empty and the consciousness of an individual can pass through it all including itself, but to identify this as the supreme one of all, is a formless realm trap according to the Buddha which frankly, most religions get stuck in.

 

Dwai, you are the one who in fact is making too many assumptions. You can quote the Parinirvana Sutra all day, out of context and with a lack of understanding of the meaning to support your ideas, but it won't work, because I know you are misunderstanding the meaning of the Sutra and Xabir has shown you how you have misunderstood it through so many quotes from the Buddha in other Sutras talking about the meaning of the Parinirvana Sutra. But, for some reason, you cannot accept that the Buddha teaches a different cosmology from Shankaracharya.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

"You might want to study up, if you care to know the difference"

 

VJ, To really "know" beyond what can be gained and what can be lost is is not a matter of study or knowledge in an intellectual or mental sense, thus I feel that most any of us, including yourself, could end up "stinking of Zen" or in other words falling into the "trap" that such alludes to by following such a recommendation.

 

Om

 

Bob, the insight of the Buddha far and away transcends any sort of mere grasping at intellectual differences.

 

Because you as well are obsessed with oneness, you miss the experiential insight of the Buddhas teachings.

 

Regardless, the internal interpretation of experience, either mundane or transcendent, beyond the intellect is hampered by grasping at a supreme identity of all, a supreme oneness deep in your unconscious. You are trapped in a formless realm identification with everything, as an experiential excuse, intellectual excuse and an emotional excuse to not go any deeper.

 

The Buddha did not make that mistake, and thus he realized dependent origination/emptiness, which is not an insight found in the Upanishads, or anywhere in the Vedas which talk about independent origination/consciousness. There is a difference that is subtler than mere mind games.

[3bob]

Be nice to know what sort of sense you are implying here, 3Bob.

 

Your one-liners have been rather baffling of late. Sorry to say so. Not sure about others, but its hard to respond when one is left guessing what you are actually trying to convey. Can you be more specific? That would really help. Seriously. And i am not looking for scriptural texts here either... merely wish to hear your thoughts and reflections, things that are inside your head, as you write these comments. I know you are responding to VJ's post, but as i can also read your response, i just feel it to be more comfortable when the possibilities of misunderstanding your single-lined comments are reduced to a bare minimum.

 

thank you!

 

Hello CowTao,

 

See post 318, which is an edit of an earlier text that apparently got through to you?

 

As far as misunderstanding goes it often doesn't matter much if we write one sentence or volumes does it? (or even one word for that matter) Om...

 

[Vajrahridaya]

It really does come down to this,

 

Vedanta = Independent origination/consciousness

Buddhism = dependent origination/emptiness

[3bob]

Bob, the insight of the Buddha far and away transcends any sort of mere grasping at intellectual differences.

 

Because you as well are obsessed with oneness, you miss the experiential insight of the Buddhas teachings.

 

Regardless, the internal interpretation of experience, either mundane or transcendent, beyond the intellect is hampered by grasping at a supreme identity of all, a supreme oneness deep in your unconscious. You are trapped in a formless realm identification with everything, as an experiential excuse, intellectual excuse and an emotional excuse to not go any deeper.

 

The Buddha did not make that mistake, and thus he realized dependent origination/emptiness, which is not an insight found in the Upanishads, or anywhere in the Vedas which talk about independent origination/consciousness. There is a difference that is subtler than mere mind games.

 

Change a word or two and it sounds you are describing your modus-operandi quite well.

 

Om

Edited November 17, 2010 by 3bob

[3bob]

(argumentive) talk of the mark = missing the mark

Edited November 17, 2010 by 3bob