Bindi

Daoist enlightenment

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, TranquilTurmoil said:

As someone who has tried to embody the aimless method for 8 years (while still having guiding goals), I can speak to pros and cons I have noticed in it in myself in others. In defense of soto zen/Caodong school of Chan, "Just Sitting"/Silent Illumination is a powerful practice and may not need supplemental meditation practices... not fully sure. However, I find the Noble Eightfold Path and the notion of Gradual Cultivation/Sudden Awakening often get lost in how it is presented... with it essentially being reduced to a Noble Onefold Path of aimless meditation. The notion of non-seeking and not needing to look externally or forcibly looking internally can be a powerful skillful means... but i think it can also lead the practicioner astray. Those are my initial thoughts on this conversation and debate... My experience certainly doesn't negate Soto Zen and non-doing, but I certainly see the value of gradual cultivation with doing, method, intent.

 

There are many ways to proceed with this particular path. Aimless meditation is not recommended! This is where the skill of a beloved teacher comes in. :)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stirling said:

 

There are many ways to proceed with this particular path. Aimless meditation is not recommended! This is where the skill of a beloved teacher comes in. :)

 

What is recommended? (Respectfully) :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

There are many ways to proceed with this particular path. Aimless meditation is not recommended! This is where the skill of a beloved teacher comes in. :)

 

3d or 4d ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, TranquilTurmoil said:

What is recommended? (Respectfully) :)

 

Figure out where you are stuck - what you are grasping at or averse to - and work with that . Feel free to message me.

 

3 minutes ago, zerostao said:

3d or 4d ?

 

3D, but certainly Amitahba is supposed to be on the line any time you need a hand. You just call out his name. 

 

(Keep in mind that like all Buddhas he is merely an avatar that represents a specific aspect, just as the external world and your body do)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enlightenment (Buddhist} is a way to overcome suffering and not have a shitty life. it is not merging with the source of creation it relies on a personal god for that job and not required to reach that level of being only reaching nirvana is the goal. AKA a wonderful living life.

 

Taoism one needs to become immortal while alive and to merge with the Tao the source of all creation. The goal take over creation and live in and outside of yin and yang at the same time. AKA have a wonderful life and live the source of non existence (no body\ eternity ) at the same time.

 

When we know the source Tao all is well if we do not know Tao we work our own ruin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

Enlightenment (Buddhist} is a way to overcome suffering and not have a shitty life. it is not merging with the source of creation it relies on a personal god for that job and not required to reach that level of being only reaching nirvana is the goal. AKA a wonderful living life.

 

This is incorrect, unless you are speaking about some whacky Buddhism I am not familiar with. Described without being couched in compromising language, Enlightenment is the dissolving of all dualities - self/other/things/time/space. It is the end of the separateness of a "self" and the world. Buddhas are merely representations of that potentiality. 

 

This IS an immortality, but not as you might imagine. 

Edited by stirling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

This is incorrect, unless you are speaking about some whacky Buddhism I am not familiar with. Described without being couched in compromising language, Enlightenment is the dissolving of all dualities - self/other/things/time/space. It is the end of the separateness of a "self" and the world. Buddhas are merely representations of that potentiality. 

 

This IS an immortality, but not as you might imagine. 

The philosophical difference is ultimate reality and ultimate creation are the same thing in Taoism. Enlightenment the term is not used in Taoism same as the term reincarnation.  

 

Enlightenment the term means to end suffering look it up I am not talking about a belief system or what one wishes to believe.

Edited by Wu Ming Jen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

...ultimate reality and ultimate creation are the same thing in Taoism. 

 

 

Same thing in Buddhism. They coexist. This is also the same, IMHO as Satchitananda. 

 

Quote

Enlightenment the term means to end suffering look it up I am not talking about a belief system or what one wishes to believe.

 

It IS the end of suffering, though it is much more than that.  Prajna (wisdom) is the non-dual understanding. The understanding is the end of suffering (or, better translation, struggle) This because the "person" who suffers, and the identification of phenomena and sensation as suffering/struggle ends. 

 

Reincarnation is also not what you think it is, but it would be far to intensive on Friday evening to explain it to you. :)

 

Quote

The awakened mind is turned upside down and does not accord even with the Buddha-wisdom. - Hui Hai

 

I have met enlightened people from a number of traditions and with no tradition at all. The ultimate understanding is always the same. Enlightenment HAS no tradition.

Edited by stirling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what always confounds me... that the belief or perception that the ultimate understanding is always the same... i cannot seem to reconcile this with what I have come across practicing and studying as I have. I don't think that most Buddhist teachers I have read or even spoken to seem to think the Nibbana of an arhat is the same as the Nirvana of a bodhisattva/buddha. Then there are Mahayanaists who deny that the Nibbana of an arhat is even an eternal, enduring condition... and some profound teachers/masters who teach this, too. At best, it seems that there is no consensus among Enlightened teachers that all enlightenment/gnosis is the same. But that's okay, I think what's most important is being respectful, tolerant and wise in discussing comparative mysticism/spiritual practices and allowing for multiplicity. :)

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 5:40 PM, Bindi said:

image.thumb.jpeg.902e80c6f8a6dec8f9aa525208554812.jpeg

 

Here

 

 

Hi,

here's the lines from daodejing 16 that this got translated from:

 

復命曰常,知常曰明。不知常,妄作凶。

 

I never saw chang (常) called as a pivot before. Most often it gets translated as "eternal," as in the famous "fei chang dao / not the eternal dao," of chapter one. So that makes sense it would be like the fulcrum, the unmoving center. How cool that finding this version led you to that light bulb moment with the seesaws!

 

Speaking of light bulb, another notable word here is ming (明), translated as enlightenment. Pictographically it is a sun and moon, meaning brightness or clarity.

 

For context here's the whole page i've snagged from the googlebooks link

Spoiler

 

daodejing16balfour.thumb.jpg.f7ceec5e2518ef438535593bf2c8c8c9.jpg

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

3 hours ago, Nintendao said:

it would be like the fulcrum, the unmoving center.

 

:blink: A fulcrum's function is motion?  If it's unmoving, it's not a fulcrum, imo.  Looking at the english translation:  "the reversion ... is called the basis or pivot".  Reversion, to me, indicates an ongoing process... motion. 

 

 

 
Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-doing is recommended by Liu I-Ming for people with superior virtue.

 

In real life that is maybe 1 out of a billion.

 

The rest of us need to work with traumas and the energy body.

 

For awakening there are always higher levels and theravada Buddhism has been surpassed by Tantra and Dzogchen.

 

I don't believe Daoist masters are above Dzogchen masters in awakening level, it is the opposite.

 

Liu I-Ming talked about superior people acting from emptiness but emptiness you can realize through sutra (Pali canon). Tantra goes deeper and Dzogchen even deeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Daniel said:

A fulcrum's function is motion?  If it's unmoving, it's not a fulcrum, imo. 

 

Nice! I was thinking unmoving at least relative to the up and down motion of the seesaw seats on either side of it. If I imagine something more complex, like a pump moving water from one place to another, the water is moving through, as the pump stays fixed in place. Looking closer however, the inner mechanism of the pump is certainly in motion. Cyclical rhythm are also aspects of both 常 (recurring) and 復 (reverting).

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TranquilTurmoil said:

This is what always confounds me... that the belief or perception that the ultimate understanding is always the same...


In my experience, it’s a non-duality thing. I had the tendency when I was into the non-duality teachings.
 

The thinking is that everything is the same, everything breaks down to the same constituent parts, and ultimately forms into the neat non-dual model.

 

The strength of it is that it’s a simple model. It’s like a powerful solvent, like taking turpentine to an intricate oil painting - however intricate the forms, whatever the myriad colours, nothing can withstand the solvent properties of the logic - and you’re able to dissolve it all into one homogenous brown blob.

 

I had a non-dual teacher at one point. He was skilled in using the solvent properties to cut through the mind-stuff to reach the underlying state of no-separation.

 

He lived in that state much of his time.

 

But was he enlightened? He certainly didn’t have the qualities I’ve read about in the classics. In fact he was pushed and pulled by his karma as much as (even more so to my eye) than anyone else. He just did it with a calm, knowing smile on his face.

 

The fact is that different traditions do things differently. Not because they’re misguided or they misunderstood the non-dual teachings - but because they are (hopefully) living lineages with a specific transmission from masters that have achieved the aims of the tradition (‘Immortality’ for instance).

 

The non-dual teachings may well be the highest teachings one has come across, but there’s a reason why there are traditions that don’t employ their solvent qualities at every stage.

 

Daoism is the art of transformation. We are lucky to have a lifetime where we have access to these teachings and have a Yin and Yang body and mind - and are therefore able to cultivate rather than just rest in awareness - plenty of time for that when we pass over.

 

Quote

The Tao is clear, yet this clarity requires you to sweep away all your clutter.


 

Quote

when achievement is great and practice profound, it moves heaven and earth.
Ridiculous are the foolish ones who only profit themselves; with no achievement and little action, they dream of becoming immortals.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 Dualism, on the surface, seems to be an adequate representation of reality. It’s the easiest one to grasp. Every philosophy and religion from Hinduism to Buddhism to Christianity has drawn on dualism in some way.

 

The Tao tells us that the way to transcend dualism is to understand that these concepts aren’t opposites. They aren’t in opposition. They are in cahoots — two sides of the same coin, rather than two opposing coins.

 

we’re experiencing these fused “opposites” at all times and can direct our attention to this.

 

Only lao Tzu has ultimate reality and ultimate creation as the same thing IE sound comes from no sound. All other traditions has god as a creator.

 

Where creation comes from and that which gods depend on to exists is not answered in other traditions.  The Tao has a clear explanation.

Edited by Wu Ming Jen
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

 Dualism, on the surface, seems to be an adequate representation of reality. It’s the easiest one to grasp. Every philosophy and religion from Hinduism to Buddhism to Christianity has drawn on dualism in some way.

 

The Tao tells us that the way to transcend dualism is to understand that these concepts aren’t opposites. They aren’t in opposition. They are in cahoots — two sides of the same coin, rather than two opposing coins.

 

we’re experiencing these fused “opposites” at all times and can direct our attention to this.

 

Only lao Tzu has ultimate reality and ultimate creation as the same thing IE sound comes from no sound. All other traditions has god as a creator.

 

Where creation comes from and that which gods depend on to exists is not answered in other traditions.  The Tao has a clear explanation.

In my knowledge of Buddhism, Buddhism actually denies a creator. In Theravada/the Pali Canon, I believe the Buddha states that the Universe has no discernible beginning, that no one can pinpoint the origin in Samsara. The other explanation which seems to be rooted in Mahayana (or possibly Vajrayana) belief, that everything comes from Shunyata (emptiness)... and by some sort of cosmic misfortune from what I discern? That emptiness started grasping at itself, thus becoming individualized, and eventually going through the  "Six realms" all the way from heaven, down through the human/earthly existence, all the way to the lower realms (and hopefully back again!). This is my understanding of Buddhist metaphysics/origin theory, thought it might clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, stirling said:

Daoism at its heart IS a non-dual tradition. 

 

 

Does non-duality ebb and flow like the dao?

 

Edited by Daniel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TranquilTurmoil said:

In my knowledge of Buddhism, Buddhism actually denies a creator. In Theravada/the Pali Canon, I believe the Buddha states that the Universe has no discernible beginning, that no one can pinpoint the origin in Samsara. The other explanation which seems to be rooted in Mahayana (or possibly Vajrayana) belief, that everything comes from Shunyata (emptiness)... and by some sort of cosmic misfortune from what I discern? That emptiness started grasping at itself, thus becoming individualized, and eventually going through the  "Six realms" all the way from heaven, down through the human/earthly existence, all the way to the lower realms (and hopefully back again!). This is my understanding of Buddhist metaphysics/origin theory, thought it might clarify.

That's cool, Buddha means enlightened one everyone can become a buddha. Emptiness is empty. Void contains all and nothing. Emptiness that is empty is not true emptiness.

 

According to Buddhist teaching, the Buddha refused to answer questions about the origins of the Earth. As a result, Buddhists do not tend to focus on questions that they cannot answer. Rather, the focus is on the concerns of the present and how to avoid suffering in the here and now. Nevertheless, Buddhists believe that as with life, worlds follow a cycle of decay, death and rebirth.

 

 The Taoist complete reality school contains Buddhism and Confucius ties it all together like strands of a broom. There is sameness in difference and difference in sameness.

 

The material life should be mastered first hence Buddhism is awesome in this respect. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TranquilTurmoil said:

This is what always confounds me... that the belief or perception that the ultimate understanding is always the same... i cannot seem to reconcile this with what I have come across practicing and studying as I have. I don't think that most Buddhist teachers I have read or even spoken to seem to think the Nibbana of an arhat is the same as the Nirvana of a bodhisattva/buddha. Then there are Mahayanaists who deny that the Nibbana of an arhat is even an eternal, enduring condition... and some profound teachers/masters who teach this, too. At best, it seems that there is no consensus among Enlightened teachers that all enlightenment/gnosis is the same. But that's okay, I think what's most important is being respectful, tolerant and wise in discussing comparative mysticism/spiritual practices and allowing for multiplicity. :)

 

The enlightened perspective is impossible to describe adequately with subject/object language. Add some translation from other languages and you have our quagmire. Enlightenment dissolves the subject/object relationship making description with language nearly impossible. Language is inadequate to the task. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

Liu I-Ming talked about superior people acting from emptiness but emptiness you can realize through sutra (Pali canon). Tantra goes deeper and Dzogchen even deeper.

 

I agree that the Dzogchen teachings (as opposed to the masters) are the most scholarly and seem to go the deepest. I have met teachers of many traditions that have realization of the same magnitude - it has nothing to do with the teachings, IMHO. 

 

The depth of understanding come from being cognizant of reifying any experience into a model of some sort, and continually noticing where there is still clinging and aversion, or subtle dualities (remainder) left. At some point this is no longer a volitional process, it just happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wu Ming Jen said:

The Tao tells us that the way to transcend dualism is to understand that these concepts aren’t opposites. They aren’t in opposition. They are in cahoots — two sides of the same coin, rather than two opposing coins.

 

In Buddhism this is the Dharmakaya. All things arise and pass from the Dharmakaya and are not ultimately separate... not in opposition. 

 

Quote

we’re experiencing these fused “opposites” at all times and can direct our attention to this.

 

Yes!

 

Quote

Only lao Tzu has ultimate reality and ultimate creation as the same thing IE sound comes from no sound. All other traditions has god as a creator.

 

In Buddhism there is Arising and Passing. They are ultimately empty of anything that arises and passes, and yet we see moment to moment that things are in the flow of change. 

 

Quote

Where creation comes from and that which gods depend on to exists is not answered in other traditions.  The Tao has a clear explanation.

 

Buddhism does not explain this explicitly, but the prajna/wisdom of enlightenment reveals that such questions don't make sense anymore. Specifically, it is seen that time is flat (no past or future, all arising happening now), therefore the question of a beginning is nonsense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TranquilTurmoil said:

That emptiness started grasping at itself, thus becoming individualized, and eventually going through the  "Six realms" all the way from heaven, down through the human/earthly existence, all the way to the lower realms (and hopefully back again!).

 

At some point there is the belief that we are separate entities with agency. The realms are always here now, and arise depending on the type of clinging/aversion that is happening in us as we struggle with the delusion of duality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

The enlightened perspective is impossible to describe adequately with subject/object language. Add some translation from other languages and you have our quagmire. Enlightenment dissolves the subject/object relationship making description with language nearly impossible. Language is inadequate to the task. 

 

I don’t want to push this too hard or too far but here is a perspective from the Theravada tradition from a respected Theravada teacher (of which I am not a part): tps://tricycle.org/magazine/we-are-not-one/

 

His perspective appears to me to be in stark opposition to Mahayana Buddhist perspective and he is highly informed and experienced in his tradition. If Buddhists can’t even agree on what’s what then it’s hard to fathom how all traditions agree on ultimate “reality “ and are just too sectarian to realize that they do 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel said:

Does non-duality ebb and flow like the dao

 

This moment is a constant flow of change. Underneath that, from an enlightened perspective, everything is still. Both are always present and can be seen from enlightened perspective. An experienced teacher can point this out to a student, thought it isn't seen at the depth enlightened mind sees it. Once recognized it can be rested in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Buddhism does not explain this explicitly, but the prajna/wisdom of enlightenment reveals that such questions don't make sense anymore. Specifically, it is seen that time is flat (no past or future, all arising happening now), therefore the question of a beginning is nonsense.

 

Was I talking about the beginning or the ending of anything? I was not. Was I talking about the The Tao, yes I was. The nonsense you are talking about has a very good chance of being your own. I am not concerned if you miss the point  over and over again. The fulcrum is the point of the first post.

 

Being and not being are a simultaneously existing while we have a body and when we do not. 

 

To know the end you need to go back to the beginning before you where born. we come from no thing and return to no thing. This may sound like a foreign language to you and it is OK.  The point is where the eternal Tao begins it is both material and the formless part of being in our daily lives.

 

Alive or dead we did not go anywhere. We have always be one with the Tao. Only our minds and post heaven conditioning can make the separation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites