dao and brahman

[ralis]

VJ, I suggest you start another one of your, "I'm a Buddhist and know it all" threads somewhere else...(Btw, note what the original poster was bringing up subject wise...) Believe it or not you don't have to try and take over almost every thread with your never ending, hypnotically-baked excuses for having superior insights, along with put downs of other ways. Frankly your constant breaking of Buddhist dharmas and or precepts is embar-assing to witness. Maybe you'll get lucky someday and bump your thick skull up against a Buddhist who won't put up with your malarky.

 

Om

 

I agree! He will try and takeover any thread in an attempt to show his illusory superiority. Very boring!

Edited June 13, 2011 by ralis

[steve]

Dao is not Dao, and Brahman is not Brahman. That is how they are alike.

Very nicely put

[steve]

I don't think you understood the meaning of what I said. It's very simple to me.

 

It's dependent origination/emptiness, there is no transcendent super entity, that's just another state of mind.

 

I think you define mind differently from me. Mind is heart, emotions, thoughts, the state of no thought, the gamut of experience from samsara to nirvana. Yet it's all empty. There is no inherent mind, thus there is no inherent God. It's all just a dynamic flow, the play of the energy of sentient beings, it's very clear to me, it's not thought. To make no thought an essence as well is a dogma. To be naked? Naked of what... seeing through everything is seeing that everything is naked even with clothes on.

Naked of your dogma...

 

"In the tendency to see the teachings of the Buddha as an explanation as how things are rather than as a support and guide to their practice, the Twelve Links have been misunderstood in many ways." Thich Nhat Hanh

[Vajrahridaya]

[Vajrahridaya]

Naked of your dogma...

 

"In the tendency to see the teachings of the Buddha as an explanation as how things are rather than as a support and guide to their practice, the Twelve Links have been misunderstood in many ways." Thich Nhat Hanh

 

I have no dogma. I want to understand the meaning of your language, your usage of words, where your questions are leading? Is having no answer the answer? Enlightenment is realizing answers directly, with and without concepts, but we are expressing this through concepts here. Enlightenment is untying the knot of ignorance.

[Vajrahridaya]

Dao is not Dao, and Brahman is not Brahman. That is how they are alike.

 

This is Ambiguous. What does that mean? Oranges as well are not oranges, they are a collection of molecules, and we project the name orange onto it in reference to it's color in our language. Apples are not apples, they are a collection of molecules. This is how apples and oranges are alike.

 

Can you elaborate?

[Vajrahridaya]

[ralis]

I'm not breaking any precepts. Anyway... I'm asking what is spirit?

 

There's school spirit, the spirit of Christmas, religious spirit, is it soul? Is it a self? Is it a feeling? It seems ambiguous to me. To ask a question and offer my opinion, as differing as it is from yours, is not breaking any precepts. It's a question, I'm asking...

 

What is spirit?

 

Here is how it's defined online:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spirit

 

spir·it (sprt)

n.

1.

a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.

b. Incorporeal consciousness.

2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.

3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.

4. A supernatural being, as:

a. An angel or a demon.

b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.

c. A fairy or sprite.

5.

a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit.

b. The essential nature of a person or group.

6. A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit.

7.

a. An inclination or tendency of a specified kind: Her actions show a generous spirit.

b. A causative, activating, or essential principle: The couple's engagement was announced in a joyous spirit.

8. spirits A mood or an emotional state: The guests were in high spirits. His sour spirits put a damper on the gathering.

9. A particular mood or an emotional state characterized by vigor and animation: sang with spirit.

10. Strong loyalty or dedication: team spirit.

11. The predominant mood of an occasion or a period: "The spirit of 1776 is not dead" (Thomas Jefferson).

12. The actual though unstated sense or significance of something: the spirit of the law.

13. An alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance. Often used in the plural with a singular verb.

14. spirits An alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor.

tr.v. spir·it·ed, spir·it·ing, spir·its

1. To carry off mysteriously or secretly: The documents had been spirited away.

2. To impart courage, animation, or determination to; inspirit.

 

................................

 

It seems ambiguous to me... I can understand it when contextualized by some of these definitions. But, as an excuse for, "I don't know?" I'm wondering how this concept brings true wisdom and knowledge, how does it truly reveal insight in the context you used it in?

 

Sure, it's a feeling, the spirit! This feeling can be deep, being moved by the spirit of revolution, being moved by the spirit of self inquiry. It's inspiration... I'm in the spirit to write this, I'm saying that I'm inspired to write and ask this question. What is "spirit" in the context you are using it in saying, "An "enlightened mind" is directed by its master or "Spirit" if you will. It's that simple, so simple that mind can not wrap its mind around it."

 

How is that insightful? Is it an emotional excuse, and intellectual excuse? An enlightened mind is moved by an enigma?

 

I could quote Buddha, but I won't... I'm not even asking as a Buddhist, now I'm asking just as a general inquiry. "What is spirit?"

 

 

What is spirit? It's an excuse, like Atman and Brahman, these concepts are transcendent models, structures and according to Buddha, excuses for higher levels of clinging.

 

Here is the problem. First, you ask a question then you make absolute definitions in an attempt to make yourself absolutely right and others here absolutely wrong. You were not asking but rather stating more dogmatic absolutes as is your style.

Edited June 13, 2011 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You were not asking but rather stating more dogmatic absolutes as is your style.

 

You react, make impertinent comments instead of debate, that is your style.

 

Stating that Spirit is God is an absolute, a dogma. Saying that "spirit" is the all mighty beyond logic, reason of existence. Taking a super emotional experience or an experience of mind without concepts as proof of a causeless cause of everything is an absolute ralis. I'm into relativity... so I'm questioning 3bob's usage of the term "spirit."

Edited June 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[steve]

I have no dogma.

 

My apologies but I just peed a little....

 

 

I want to understand the meaning of your language, your usage of words, where your questions are leading? Is having no answer the answer? Enlightenment is realizing answers directly, with and without concepts, but we are expressing this through concepts here. Enlightenment is untying the knot of ignorance.

My use of "created of mind" would be more accurately stated, "created by human thought."

 

Having no answer was Buddha's answer.

Having no answer is the nature of Interdependent Co-Arising and Emptiness.

I think it's important to take care lest we corrupt it by turning it into THE answer.

 

You and I seem to differ on this - to me you seem deeply attached to this paradigm as the answer.

You seem to think that because of an insight into the true nature of Emptiness and Dependent Origination, that you cannot be attached to it.

Untying the knot of ignorance involves letting go everything.

 

Naked.

 

I think it's something that bears careful consideration.

Best wishes.

[Vajrahridaya]

My apologies but I just peed a little....

 

I understand that the popular way to react to someone challenging ones own charished mental dogmas is to retaliate. It's natural. I've done it myself.

 

My use of "created of mind" would be more accurately stated, "created by human thought."

 

Having no answer was Buddha's answer.

 

 

He answered many times in other places...

 

He said in other places, "dependent origination is the all"... he also said, "To see dependent origination is to see the dharma and to see the dharma is to see the Buddha."

 

Here's one such text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

 

"In this sutta, the Buddha faces two antagonists: Baka, a brahma who believes that his brahma-attainment is the highest attainment there is; and Mara, who wants (1) to keep Baka under his power by allowing Baka to maintain his deluded opinion, and (2) to prevent the Buddha from sharing his awakened knowledge with others. Of the two, Mara is the more insidious, a point illustrated by the fact that Mara always speaks through someone else and never directly shows his face. (Another interesting point is illustrated by the fact that Mara is the source of the demand that one obey a creator god.)"

 

 

Having no answer is the nature of Interdependent Co-Arising and Emptiness.

I think it's important to take care lest we corrupt it by turning it into THE answer.

 

You and I seem to differ on this - to me you seem deeply attached to this paradigm as the answer.

 

When you see dependent origination, you see your own liberated nature as it is the way things work. The theory of dependent origination is not limited to the 12 links. Also, Thich Nhat Hanh is a Mahayana Buddhist, but he's not a Vajrayana Buddhist which has more explanations and applications for dependent origination than Theravada and Mahayana.

 

Dependent Origination/Emptiness the conceptual model is not the answer, it is the clearest conceptual formulation of the answer. Which is why the Buddha swore by it. He also said, "There is no teaching like this on the earth at this time." If you want to know what the Buddha said, study the Buddha. I used to use quotes from him, pulled out of context to justify my Theistic leanings. But, then I came across things the Buddha said, like, "there is no self, whether in the skandas or outside of the skandas, there is no self of the many and there is no self of the all."

 

Self is only a relative designation, but there is no ultimate nature, no ultimate "spirit"... no secret will behind everything, designating everything an illusion but itself. This path is a result to clinging to one or another of the formless samadhi states as ultimate and absolute, then creating an all subsuming dogma around it. Ideas such as "God is one, but it's forms are many." This is a deep, and subtle dogma.

 

You seem to think that because of an insight into the true nature of Emptiness and Dependent Origination, that you cannot be attached to it.

 

No, you can't, because there is no you to be attached to it as the insight dictates intuitively. Actually in a sense, one realizes how attached to everything one is due to seeing dependent origination, but due to seeing emptiness directly, ones awareness is free from this attachment yet one acts out of compassion due to the fact of the interwoven nature of everything.

 

There is no nakedness, there is no one that was clothed to be naked to begin with.

 

Anyway, we are trying to talk about Taoism and the concept of Brahman. I don't find them compatible, because Brahman is describing a static formless Self of all, that has no cause, but causes movement through the illusion of Maya. In these texts that allude to Brahman, they are describing the experience of the jhana/samadhi of infinite consciousness as the end all be all, the all subsuming dogma that absorbs ones potential for true insight into the nature of things. There is also the concept of parabrahman, and this is describing the jhana/samadhi of nothingness, this is not compatible with neither Buddhism, nor Taoism as it's a top down theory, making this experience a proof of a self existent transcendent singular source of all that has a will of it's own. The Tao is a dynamic force that is basically a metaphor for the all, It's basically the same as saying, "everything and infinite potential for more." The Tao is basically saying, "the way of things", just like saying, "dependent origination/emptiness."

 

In Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and all else is an illusion, Maya. In Taoism, there is no illusion, just constant flow, change, and that's the constant, the forever nature of things, the Tao. The way of things being impermanent, every flowing, is the source of things, the mother of things. It's a different view all together, leading to a different outcome.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

I understand that the popular way to react to someone challenging ones own charished mental dogmas is to retaliate. It's natural. I've done it myself.

 

 

 

He answered many times in other places...

 

He said in other places, "dependent origination is the all"... he also said, "To see dependent origination is to see the dharma and to see the dharma is to see the Buddha."

 

Here's one such text: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

 

"In this sutta, the Buddha faces two antagonists: Baka, a brahma who believes that his brahma-attainment is the highest attainment there is; and Mara, who wants (1) to keep Baka under his power by allowing Baka to maintain his deluded opinion, and (2) to prevent the Buddha from sharing his awakened knowledge with others. Of the two, Mara is the more insidious, a point illustrated by the fact that Mara always speaks through someone else and never directly shows his face. (Another interesting point is illustrated by the fact that Mara is the source of the demand that one obey a creator god.)"

 

 

 

 

When you see dependent origination, you see your own liberated nature as it is the way things work. The theory of dependent origination is not limited to the 12 links. Also, Thich Nhat Hanh is a Mahayana Buddhist, but he's not a Vajrayana Buddhist which has more explanations and applications for dependent origination than Theravada and Mahayana.

 

Dependent Origination/Emptiness the conceptual model is not the answer, it is the clearest conceptual formulation of the answer. Which is why the Buddha swore by it. He also said, "There is no teaching like this on the earth at this time." If you want to know what the Buddha said, study the Buddha. I used to use quotes from him, pulled out of context to justify my Theistic leanings. But, then I came across things the Buddha said, like, "there is no self, whether in the skandas or outside of the skandas, there is no self of the many and there is no self of the all."

 

Self is only a relative designation, but there is no ultimate nature, no ultimate "spirit"... no secret will behind everything, designating everything an illusion but itself. This path is a result to clinging to one or another of the formless samadhi states as ultimate and absolute, then creating an all subsuming dogma around it. Ideas such as "God is one, but it's forms are many." This is a deep, and subtle dogma.

 

 

 

No, you can't, because there is no you to be attached to it as the insight dictates intuitively. Actually in a sense, one realizes how attached to everything one is due to seeing dependent origination, but due to seeing emptiness directly, ones awareness is free from this attachment yet one acts out of compassion due to the fact of the interwoven nature of everything.

 

There is no nakedness, there is no one that was clothed to be naked to begin with.

 

Anyway, we are trying to talk about Taoism and the concept of Brahman. I don't find them compatible, because Brahman is describing a static formless Self of all, that has no cause, but causes movement through the illusion of Maya. In these texts that allude to Brahman, they are describing the experience of the jhana/samadhi of infinite consciousness as the end all be all, the all subsuming dogma that absorbs ones potential for true insight into the nature of things. There is also the concept of parabrahman, and this is describing the jhana/samadhi of nothingness, this is not compatible with neither Buddhism, nor Taoism as it's a top down theory, making this experience a proof of a self existent transcendent singular source of all that has a will of it's own. The Tao is a dynamic force that is basically a metaphor for the all, It's basically the same as saying, "everything and infinite potential for more." The Tao is basically saying, "the way of things", just like saying, "dependent origination/emptiness."

 

In Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and all else is an illusion, Maya... in Taoism, there is no illusion, just constant flow, change, and that's the constant, the forever nature of things, the Tao. The way of things being impermanent, every flowing, is the source of things, the mother of things. It's a different view all together, leading to a different outcome.

 

 

This thread is about the Tao and Brahman, No one asked to have another lecture on Buddhism DO&E. This was an interesting thread until you interrupted it.

[Vajrahridaya]

This thread is about the Tao and Brahman, No one asked to have another lecture on Buddhism DO&E. This was an interesting thread until you interrupted it.

 

Read to the end of my post before reacting in your usual fashion.

 

4$$#073

[ralis]

Read to the end of my post before reacting in your usual fashion.

 

4$$#073

 

I am not reacting. You are interrupting this thread with another dogmatic lecture!

[Vajrahridaya]

I am not reacting. You are interrupting this thread with another dogmatic lecture!

 

Yes, you are reacting... I wrote this at the bottom of the post.

 

 

Anyway, we are trying to talk about Taoism and the concept of Brahman. I don't find them compatible, because Brahman is describing a static formless Self of all, that has no cause, but causes movement through the illusion of Maya. In these texts that allude to Brahman, they are describing the experience of the jhana/samadhi of infinite consciousness as the end all be all, the all subsuming dogma that absorbs ones potential for true insight into the nature of things. There is also the concept of parabrahman, and this is describing the jhana/samadhi of nothingness, this is not compatible with neither Buddhism, nor Taoism as it's a top down theory, making this experience a proof of a self existent transcendent singular source of all that has a will of it's own. The Tao is a dynamic force that is basically a metaphor for the all, It's basically the same as saying, "everything and infinite potential for more." The Tao is basically saying, "the way of things", just like saying, "dependent origination/emptiness."

 

In Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and all else is an illusion, Maya. In Taoism, there is no illusion, just constant flow, change, and that's the constant, the forever nature of things, the Tao. The way of things being impermanent, every flowing, is the source of things, the mother of things. It's a different view all together, leading to a different outcome.

 

You seem to be dogmatic ralis, you get dogmatic every time I don't agree with everyone, you have a mental dogma that makes you want to react to every single post I write instead of debating the points like plenty of others are able to do. You lack the capacity, that's fine... then just sit back and ignore my posts.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Stigweard]

My apologies but I just peed a little....

 

*passes napkin*

 

[Vajrahridaya]

*passes napkin*

 

 

And I thought Taoism was supposed to make your bladder stronger?

 

Weak!

[3bob]

VJ, If you want converts you'll never get them this way, in fact you will turn them away... take an example from some other Buddhists here who are more or less at peace and proceeding along their way without overdone doctrine hammerings.

 

Om

[steve]

I understand that the popular way to react to someone challenging ones own charished mental dogmas is to retaliate. It's natural. I've done it myself.

 

I thought you had no dogma.

 

Come on dude, it's great that you are so passionate and knowledgable about the Dzogchen dogma.

But, do you think you could let it go?

Completely let it go?

If not, can you learn something from that?

[steve]

Dao is not Dao, and Brahman is not Brahman. That is how they are alike.

 

This is Ambiguous. What does that mean? Oranges as well are not oranges, they are a collection of molecules, and we project the name orange onto it in reference to it's color in our language. Apples are not apples, they are a collection of molecules. This is how apples and oranges are alike.

 

Can you elaborate?

Sorry to intrude but I thought this was elegant, not at all ambiguous.

If I'm off the mark, I hope the Forest will let us know.

 

Reality is.... Dao is a word, Brahman is a word.

Both are concepts, created of thought, to describe Reality, as is your non-dogma dogma, Vajrah.

All are slightly different fingers pointing at the same moon.

 

 

... except of course, that yours is the best...

 

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Vajrahridaya]

 

All are slightly different fingers pointing at the same moon.

 

 

 

How is this known that they are fingers pointing at the same moon? This is an assumption based simply on where you are sitting now, in my opinion it's spiritual ambiguity, which is what happens when one takes up the non-conceptual as an essence. Sure, it's a good place to be, but it's not liberation as the non-conceptual is a bound view as well. If you get into the details, which is where the truth is, in the details, and unpack the meaning of the concepts as defined by the sages of the different traditions, you will get to a different subjective meaning.

 

I used to be all about this spiritual ambiguity... But, it's not enlightenment, it's just buddy, buddy, let's all get along because we're scared to challenge ourselves to dig deeper in front of other people. We'd rather save face.

 

What else is a blog board for? But to challenge ourselves to dig deeper and find answers to deeper questions than we are allowed to ask out loud at our daily job. Everyone wants to react to me, because I don't agree with everyone. Why can't I have my opinion, differing from others? I'm not a Monistic Idealist anymore, though I once was. It's good for parties, but not for sifting through the meaning of life. It's nothing but a blissful glaze-over, a blissful generalization.

 

The Buddha certainly wasn't scared to question such dogmas of vaguery.

 

What I'm saying, is that it's my opinion that the term Tao and Brahman are not pointing to the same realization. I can quote scriptures to illustrate my point. I'm into clarity, so why does my opinion have to be the same as yours? If my self educated and experienced opinion differs from yours, it's a dogma? I can say the same bout your view, that I find your imperialist all subsuming monistic idealism a dogmatic approach that doesn't let a tradition have it's own path, identity and conclusions. Not from an egoic stance on identity, but rather that maybe the paths do have different cosmologies stemming from an entirely different view of the nature of things?

 

Just to illustrate a point,

From the Buddha:

 

Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?"

 

"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

 

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

 

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

 

"Then is everything a Oneness?"

 

"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

 

"Then is everything a Manyness?"

 

"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: Lokayatika Sutta

 

Now of course Monistic Idealists will read this, as I once did and gloss over it with the idea that, "ground of being is transcendent"... but it's pointing to a realization subtler than this as revealed in other texts...

 

The Tao Te Ching is also pointing to this, as it is defined as, "The Way" but the way of things cannot be grasped, because it is empty, it's not one, it's not many, it's a flow, a never ending and liberating flow.

 

Brahman is defined in hindu scripture as...

 

"Sat Chit Ananda" Truth Consciousness and Bliss as well as truly self existing.

 

Also...

 

"That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protector, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever."

 

I have read endless scripture in reference to Brahman, I've experienced directly what they mean by Brahman being beyond thought. I'm not talking from book knowledge. I know, it's easier for you to do away with me by having that thought to yourself. But, the insight is different, the understanding and result of the understanding is different. The cosmology is different. I know, it seems clear to just bliss out with the all is one beyond concepts state of mind. I did it a number of times while doing this to illustrate the point to myself much better. It's just a potential of the mind and it has it's merits, but it's not the end all be all.

 

I'm not being dogmatic, I'm being inquiring.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[steve]

How is this known that they are fingers pointing at the same moon?

It's my assertion that both are pointing at reality.

The moon is reality (whatever that may be or not be).

 

 

What I'm saying, is that it's my opinion that the term Tao and Brahman are not pointing to the same realization.

I agree - how did realization come into this?

My point is simply that they are all pointing at the same reality.

Realization is just an attempt at or experience of conceptualizing reality.

Each paradigm uses a different conceptual framework and therefore leads to different realizations.

You can certainly argue that one is better or more accurate than another if you like.

But the realization is not the reality - just an image created out of thought.

[Vajrahridaya]

I agree - how did realization come into this?

My point is simply that they are all pointing at the same reality.

Realization is just an attempt at or experience of conceptualizing reality.

Each paradigm uses a different conceptual framework and therefore leads to different realizations.

You can certainly argue that one is better or more accurate than another if you like.

But the realization is not the reality - just an image created out of thought.

 

Ok, there you go, now I understand your point. Ok then. Yes, both are truths, one is more liberating than the other in my opinion. One leads to a long lived formless god realm, just as the Buddha asserted and I have ascertained through study of and meditation on Vedantin texts, and the other leads to a more grounded, and eminent form of realization that has nothing to do with merging with a transcendent, self existing entity.

[steve]

Ok, there you go, now I understand your point. Ok then. Yes, both are truths,

Awesome! Agreement!

 

...one is more liberating than the other in my opinion.

You don't say!