Taoism Vs Buddhism

[Marblehead]

We can see here why Buddhism has won inter-religious debates before.

 

Taoists say what needs to be said and then they go find a local bar for a drink, while Buddhists just keep talking, and talking, and talking, and think they have won because they are the only ones left on the floor.

 

 

I couldn't help laugh at this. Hehehe. Actually, belly laughs.

 

Yeah, we have to give Vaj credit though - he sure do know how to talk.

 

Peace & Love Y'all!

[adept]

We can see here why Buddhism has won inter-religious debates before.

 

Taoists say what needs to be said and then they go find a local bar for a drink, while Buddhists just keep talking, and talking, and talking, and think they have won because they are the only ones left on the floor.

 

 

Yes, and Buddhists won't drink anyway so they're missing out on all that lovely Guinness.

[SeriesOfTubes]

It frees you more clearly from ego and self in you and others. It also helps one to understand more deeply the chain of inter-weaving causation and allow you to be a more clear channel of healing and selfless service.

 

 

thanks for the quick response, I am interested in understanding. If I am hearing correctly, in such a case right view/DO/E would have to do primary with thought process & spontaneous insight? I mean, in itself you wouldn't expect such a view to transform anything that is already understood to be impermanent, right?

[Stigweard]

Yes, and Buddhists won't drink anyway so they're missing out on all that lovely Guinness.

[dwai]

I couldn't help laugh at this. Hehehe. Actually, belly laughs.

 

Yeah, we have to give Vaj credit though - he sure do know how to talk.

 

Peace & Love Y'all!

 

 

Corrections...we don't know how he talks. He does know how to serve up a storm in a forum post (or 10 or million)

 

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, and Buddhists won't drink anyway so they're missing out on all that lovely Guinness.

 

Only certain types of monks are not allowed to drink. So, in fact it's fine for other types of monks and lay practitioners to drink but not 2 the point of loosing awareness.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

thanks for the quick response, I am interested in understanding. If I am hearing correctly, in such a case right view/DO/E would have to do primary with thought process & spontaneous insight? I mean, in itself you wouldn't expect such a view to transform anything that is already understood to be impermanent, right?

 

You're very welcome. Thanks for your interest!

 

It depends upon how deeply you take the view of impermanence. Most paths think that there is some inherent permanent God, consciousness, element, behind the appearance of everything. But Buddhism even sees that depth as impermanent and that the only permanence is making the view of impermanence permanent.

 

But yes, it should eventually be spontaneous insight after one understand it intellectually.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

We can see here why Buddhism has won inter-religious debates before.

 

Taoists say what needs to be said and then they go find a local bar for a drink, while Buddhists just keep talking, and talking, and talking, and think they have won because they are the only ones left on the floor.

 

 

That is actually quite funny. Though, I'm drinking a Heineken right now.

 

I'm not a monk... LOL! I worked very, very hard today and deserve a little beer to calm my muscles. It's actually considered a medicine in moderation in Tibet.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Corrections...we don't know how he talks. He does know how to serve up a storm in a forum post (or 10 or million)

 

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Hehehe. I know. I was assuming and we all know what is said about assuming.

 

You are exactly correct in correcting me. I have no idea how he talks. He may even have had his tongue cut out a long time ago and can't even speak. Perhaps that is why he feels it necessary to type so much on his keyboard.

 

But then he may not ever type at all, may not have had his tongue cut out, has voice recognition software on his computer and just sits in front of the monitor and endlessly talks to it.

 

But then, judging by how much he does talk to his computer, if this is what he does, I would think he is one of those rabid-mouthed females I have known during my lifetime.

 

All suppositions above because I know so little of the reality of it all.

[Vajrahridaya]

Jesus bloody Christ save me from this crucifix!

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

Jesus bloody Christ save me from this crucifix!

 

 

 

 

 

Hehehe. Just subtle hints, Vaj, just subtle hints.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

There is no division of essence in reality itself. Words/thought place arbitrary labels on aspects of reality. Therefore the division between an apple and a chair and I (not the words but the reality towards which these words point) is not really present in reality itself, but only in thought. The essence which is manifest as apple chair and I is understood as essence rather the shapes and actions of its manifestations.. This could lead me to say that there is no 'I' but it could likewise lead me to say that there is no apple and no chair. There is just the essence of reality, which is everything. But the experience is happening from a certain point of view which is always the same point of view. 'I'/me/we refers to this point of view. There is no experience as a flower, there is only experience of a flower. There is only ever an experience as the awareness from this point of view of everything else. So, although in reality itself, everything may be one, the experience of reality is always as something, 'I', of itself and of everything else. 'I' refers to that consistent, unique, localised experience of reality.

 

Be well..

[manitou]

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

 

Hi Vaj - we're talking about a different place of I AM. The place I'm talking about is the place that is formless, once you've made your way through the form of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism. Your suggestion to study up isn't how the place is found. Maybe stop studying for a while, Vaj.

[xabir2005]

Something I wrote at on the difference between the I AM insight and Non Dual insight:

 

(note: this is not the complete list of insights in the spiritual, for a more complete one please refer to http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html )

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/one-taste.html

 

One Taste

Posted by: An Eternal Now

Note: You can also see my complete journal of self-discoveries at http://www.box.net/shared/3verpiao63

 

In the gap between two thoughts, turning the light of knowing within, we touch our innermost essence, the pure sense of presence-existence-knowing. It is certain, still, complete, non-dual, formless. There is no doubts about it. It's utterly still in that direct authentication... this gives rise to an impression of being the Eternal Witness beyond and observing transient thoughts and phenomena. It becomes a pure identity, a center and core behind all experiences.

 

But further contemplation will lead to the seeing that all forms and transient phenomena and manifestation are equally certain, still, complete, non-dual. It is just as intimately 'you' as the pure sense of existence and being, and yet there is no 'you' there at all - just the mountains, the scenery, the wind, the sky, the bird chirping. In the absence of an identity, you are whatever arises. In place of the absence of a separate self is the presence of the entire world standing/shining on its own (without a separate perceiver) in its brilliant luminosity, purity, magical-ness, aliveness, blissfullness, centrelessness, infinitude and borderlessness and stillness (not a dead stillness but stillness of the transience).

 

We realize that all phenomena and experiences have the same taste as the initial glimpse of pure awareness as pure presence-existence or I AM. That experience, it's certainty, non-duality, completeness and perfection, etc... are all equal characteristics of all experience and manifestation and forms. All forms and formless states are of one taste.

 

Prior to this deeper seeing, there is the tendency to cling to a center, a formless background observer, a space-like awareness that is behind and contains all passing thoughts, feelings, sensations. There is a tendency to cling to that formless I AM as our purest identity. Why? When all thoughts subside, we experience the formless pure sense of presence, and with its certainty, completeness, intimacy/non-duality, it is easy to take that as our purest identity. It's non-duality implies there is no separation between 'you' and 'that'. There is absolutely no distance, only pure intimacy. But later, we see that this applies not only to Presence experienced in the formless state, but as all manifestations. Yes, there is just the sun, the mountain, the river, all are without distance because there is no 'you' at the center separate from 'that'... The framework of a subject operating in an objective world of space and time collapses into a pure intimacy and nakedness of experiencing.

 

This seeing leads to lessening the tendency to cling to a 'purest state of presence' or a formless background. There is also no more tendency to dissociate yourself from manifestation, for whatever manifest is pure consciousness itself.

 

Well... almost. Cos the tendencies are deep and they will resurface - the fear and tendency to cling to and re-confirm a 'familiar state of presence', the fear of letting go a previous experience of pure consciousness (which leads to overlooking This arising non-dual experience), the fear of letting go of the self/Self and simply let hearing be hearing without hearer, let seeing be seeing without seer, let the universe reveal itself freshly in each moment as a complete pure consciousness 'event' of itself. And if all manifestation is equally pure, pristine and complete, why the need to cling to a purest identity?

 

You are not just the formless presence/knower/consciousness... you are all forms, you are the universe univers-ing, you are whatever is arising moment to moment as a complete non-dual experience in itself... There is no background awareness and foreground phenomena happening in awareness... there is simply foreground pure consciousness always, be it the pure existence experienced in a formless mode (e.g. I AM, aka the 'thought realm' as Thusness puts it), or in all forms... the making of a non-dual experience into a background is simply trying to capture and reify a moment of pure consciousness.

[Marblehead]

Greetings..

...

Be well..

 

Wow! You almost got mystical on us there. That's the closest I've seen you come to that. Hehehe.

 

(Nice post though.)

[Marblehead]

...

Maybe stop studying for a while, Vaj.

 

I am so tempted to add to that but I will resist the temptation as I have already been pretty hard on Vaj. (I still do consider him a friend so I can't over-do it.)

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Only certain types of monks are not allowed to drink. So, in fact it's fine for other types of monks and lay practitioners to drink but not 2 the point of loosing awareness.

 

 

That's bullshit. Five Precepts: Do not take intoxicants. A rationalization on your part, no matter what your teacher says. You lose clarity of mind after one drink, and making it a regular practice works against spiritual development. You're just attached to it, that's all. A serious Buddhist practitioner avoids intoxicants, the amateurs rationalize and drink.

Edited November 19, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Apech]

B.S. A rationalization.

 

No he's right ... in Tibetan Buddhism its inebriation (i.e. damaging consciousness) that is the problem and not the drink. So unless you specifically take a vow not tot drink at all its ok in moderation.

[TzuJanLi]

Wow! You almost got mystical on us there. That's the closest I've seen you come to that. Hehehe.

 

(Nice post though.)

Hi MH: Thanks for noticing.. at the more subtle levels of "I", there is a relationship between the existent I, as its individualized perspective, and the reality within which it is separated from.. this is the beauty of we/us/Life, we actually are the experience experienceing itself, revealing reality to itself in an endless dynamic relationship..

 

Be well..

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

No he's right ... in Tibetan Buddhism its inebriation (i.e. damaging consciousness) that is the problem and not the drink. So unless you specifically take a vow not tot drink at all its ok in moderation.

 

 

Sure. I still think it's a rationalization by someone who likes to talk a lot.

Edited November 19, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Marblehead]

Something I wrote at on the difference between the I AM insight and Non Dual insight:

 

Very nicely written and explained.

 

In my mind, this is speaking to the experience of the full (100%) 'wu' state.

 

I have no problem with what was said.

 

I only ask: "How many of us can remain in this state for an extended period of time?"

 

I ask this because I believe that 'reality' always slaps us aside the head and demands our attention. While we are in this state there are 'things' going on all around us. Many of these 'things' demand our attention. As soon as we define 'our attention' we have left the full state of 'wu'. At this point we intend to do something in response to the demands. "I" is who is having thoughts of intent. "I" is who will be taking action based upon the intent.

 

That is why many Taoists suggest that we maintain a balance (harmony) between "I" and "not-I".

 

"I" can never be the flower, the mountain, etc. But we can be a part of it and all else. If we think we are "I". Thought requires a thought thinker, an "I". Even when we are viewing our environment from a non-dualistic state it is still "I" who is doing the viewing.

 

But again, nice presentation. Thanks for sharing.

[Apech]

I still say it's a trap for people like him.

 

What is? Drink you mean? It affects different people very differently. They have found a genetic propensity in some who react strongly to drink. Others can drink and it doesn't mean much.

[Marblehead]

Hi MH: Thanks for noticing.. at the more subtle levels of "I", there is a relationship between the existent I, as its individualized perspective, and the reality within which it is separated from.. this is the beauty of we/us/Life, we actually are the experience experienceing itself, revealing reality to itself in an endless dynamic relationship..

 

Be well..

 

Yes, I am letting you slide on that one (hehehe) because I know you understand the significance of the state of 'wu'. Speaking of this state always sounds somewhat mystical.

[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.

 

I beg your pardon...? More projections, labels, assumptions, lecturing, misunderstandings, foot in mouth, etc..

 

Zen asks the right question: "When the many are reduced to the one, to what shall the one be reduced?"

 

Om

Edited November 19, 2010 by 3bob

[xabir2005]

Very nicely written and explained.

 

In my mind, this is speaking to the experience of the full (100%) 'wu' state.

 

I have no problem with what was said.

 

I only ask: "How many of us can remain in this state for an extended period of time?"

 

I ask this because I believe that 'reality' always slaps us aside the head and demands our attention. While we are in this state there are 'things' going on all around us. Many of these 'things' demand our attention. As soon as we define 'our attention' we have left the full state of 'wu'. At this point we intend to do something in response to the demands. "I" is who is having thoughts of intent. "I" is who will be taking action based upon the intent.

 

That is why many Taoists suggest that we maintain a balance (harmony) between "I" and "not-I".

 

"I" can never be the flower, the mountain, etc. But we can be a part of it and all else. If we think we are "I". Thought requires a thought thinker, an "I". Even when we are viewing our environment from a non-dualistic state it is still "I" who is doing the viewing.

 

But again, nice presentation. Thanks for sharing.

It is not possible if one simply have glimpses or experiences of non-duality without the arising of insights, because all experiences are by nature transient. It is not uncommon - many people in fact do have such peak experiences (perhaps when viewing a beautiful sunset, or a mesmerizing scenery - for me the first non-dual peak experience was with a tree - it was so mesmerizing that it completely absorbed away my self-contraction), but few have the realization.

 

However, it is different when one realizes that the nature of reality is already non-dual by nature.

 

It is not about sustaining an experience or a state... it is about having a quantum shift in perception, a realization of the way things truly are. There is a vast difference between temporarily experiencing a non-dual state, and realizing the nature of reality as non-dual.

 

That is - in thinking, always just thoughts, no thinker - always already so. (it is not about 'dissolving the thinker' or 'merging with thoughts')

 

In seeing, only just scenery, no seer - always already so. (it is not about 'dissolving the seer' or 'merging with scenery')

 

In hearing, only just sounds, no hearer - always already so. (it is not about 'dissolving the hearer' or 'merging with sounds')

 

In action, only just doing/action, no doer/controller - always been so. Just spontaneous happening one after another. (it is not about 'dissolving the doer' or 'merging with action')

 

It is a fact of reality, which can only be 'realized'.

 

There is no 'viewing non-duality' - there is just pure viewing without viewer, and the view is simply the arising phenomena - thoughts, sounds, scenery, etc... whatever is arising moment to moment. There is no separate object called 'non-duality' other than This... da da da on the keyboard, words appearing on screen. If there is something separate from this arising manifestation called 'non-duality', it could not qualify as 'non-duality'.

 

This is the nature of reality.

 

When you say 'I hear bird singing', in actuality there is no 'I' hearing the 'bird'... there is just the sound of chirping without hearer.

 

The scenery... the heart beating... the sensation of wind... the thoughts arising.

 

All happening without a self or agent.

 

Yes, even thoughts arise without 'I'... even if thoughts refer to a sense of 'I', the 'I' is baseless: it is not referring to an actual entity, even if it was believed to be so.

 

After enlightenment, you continue to use words like 'I' and 'mine' as mere conventions. It is no longer believed to be referring to an actual entity. Further, thoughts of 'I' are also happening without a thinker/experiencer/agent.

 

Much like the word 'weather' does not actually refer to an inherently existing entity located somewhere... the label 'I' is merely a convention, a convenient label on the conglomerate of everchanging weatherly patterns - rain, lightning, clouds, wind, etc.

 

 

Also, on another note: you think that thoughts and action imply an "I", but this is not so. Have you ever known what your next moment of thought will be? No, you will never, and can never know what the next moment of thought will be. It simply appears spontaneously as a new, complete thought without a thinker/doer. Same applies to all actions, intentions, and so on. They arise with supporting conditions - the entire interconnected universe (including our latent tendencies, intentions, and so on) working together for this moment of arising to appear. (Dependent Origination) There is no agency (controller, doer, experiencer, perceiver, etc)

Edited November 19, 2010 by xabir2005