- This topic has 15 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Plato,
Before I give you a nice thoughtful reply on “semblance dharma”, I would appreciate it if you would first clarify for me what you define as “dharma”.
The reason I ask is in your previous postings you seem to imply that not all the schools of Buddhism are authentic. Does this disqualify them from belonging to your notion of Dharma. Or, If you are referring to the path taught by the small circle of Nan, Bodri, and gang, then please clarify the way that their Dharma differs from the larger collective dharma.And Max, I appreciate your shift in emphasis to the many similarities in philosophy, even though their specific methods produce different experiences. And note that a couple of dates are off – you’ve got Lao Tzu writing about 1000 BC. The earliest known text attributed to Lao Tzu/ Laozi is about 462 B.C., and its clear that he is not a single person, but represents the collective wisdom of many meditation schools for an unknown number of centuries before (which, given the lengthy staying power of the oral tradition in China, could extend before 1000 BC. Best book on this topic is Original Tao by Harold Roth.
The best merging of the Diamond Sutra and Lao Tzu is the Hua hu Ching, rewritten from Master Ni Hua Ching text by Brian Walker. Ni Hua Ching was both a Tien Tai Taoist (form of Chan Tao-Buddhism) and also trained in “pure” Taoist inner alchemy. I think both sides of this discussion will like it. All 81 chapters are online, worth everyone reading so we can continue to elevate the level of this discussion.
http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/hua-hu-ching.htm
Plato, I will be teaching this weekend, so my next lengthy epistle will probably be posted on Monday. Have a peaceful weekend.
Love, chi, blessings,
MichaelI appreciate the fact that this debate is elevating.
I will not define the word dharma because I can see a “set-up” coming. 😉
Not all schools of Buddhism are authentic, just as not all schools of Taoism are authentic.
The schools that are authentic do all produce the same experiences. This is why cultivation principles are universal. Differences in experiences can often be accounted for when you ask how far a school of cultivation takes their cultivation. 🙂
The rest of the results are often semblance dharma, or other stray paths. Such paths can even lead to various forms of immortality, but they are not the same as seeing or embodying the Tao.
As far as the dates Max quoted, he referenced an English translation of a book by Master Nan which has not been published in America. During the course of our discussion I will probably post sections from it.
In terms of your library, you cannot possible compete against someone like Master Nan who reads classical Chinese and consequently has access to a much greater store of knowledge. Yet, you still say that the “best” book is this one or that one.
On Amazon.com maybe!
Nonetheless, I am eager to continue this conversation.
Echoes of Lao Tzu, Simple, clear, short paragraphs. 19, 22, 59 particularly good.
Why do some make it so complicated?
Peace
Michael
< And note that a couple of dates are off - you've got Lao Tzu writing about < 1000 BC. The earliest known text attributed to Lao Tzu/ Laozi is about 462 < B.C., and its clear that he is not a single person, but represents the < collective wisdom of many meditation schools for an unknown number of < centuries before (which, given the lengthy staying power of the oral < tradition in China, could extend before 1000 BC. You are absolutely correct, but the date 1001-946 BC was refering not to Lao Tzu collective teachings but to the first methods of cultivation that crystalized on the basis of those teachings. As for Diamond Sutra, I have 3 versions: "The Diamond Sutra" by Red Pine, "The Diamond Sutra & The Sutra of Hui-neng" by Price and Wong Mou-lam, and "Diamond Sutra Explained" by Master Huaijin Nan. By far Master Nan version is the best that reflects the actual spirit of Buddha teachings. < I appreciate your shift in emphasis to the many similarities in philosophy, < even though their specific methods produce different experiences. I will speak about "different experiences" much later. Thank you for the link. Metta
“The schools that are authentic do all produce the same experiences.”
as far as buddhist vs. daoist, this may be true. i havent researched much buddhist cultivation. i did western alchemy for 13 years prior to HT. my cousin still does western alchemy and is writing several books about it. they do produce different experiences from the subjective view of the practitioner. he and i have had numerous discussions about this. he actually incorporated a little healing tao into his methids because they were too firey. he also ended up with his cetner of balance too high. HT helped correct this.
in the most general sense, i can say the experiences are the same. but the landmarks are different. sensations of energy are different. methods of practice are different. energy cetners that they focus on are different.
when i first started on that path, one of the things we discussed was kundalini psychosis. years later i heard michael talk about the same issue. it doesn’t seem to be a problem with the HT techniques. my cousin and i both suffered from it to some extent.
i would say what i learned was authentic because people have achieved imortality with those techinques, but, BUT, they leave a lot up to the practitioner to figure out. HT, or at lest michael’s version of it, provides more thorough instruction and more effective practices.
as for access to the ancietn chinese–there is no virute in this, per se. that stuff is so hard to read most, say about 1.3 billion, modern chinese can’t understand it. it is very subject to interpretation. you could argue that thomas cleary knows as much if not more than nan because he too reads ancient chinese. the only thing you can say for sure about those ancient texts is that people argue about their real meanings. here and in the west. you must learn from the qi and the dao. these are the only legitimate teachers. book knowledge is meaningless, almost useless, and of even lesser value. anyone who claims to be knowledgeable about anything based on book knowledge alone is building a house of cards in a draughfty room.
i can read all i want about wilderness survival and let on to know all about it. i can discuss the methods and theories. until i go out into the woods and practice it, i know nothing. and the harsh reality of that will hit me the first time i really need it. if you really wanna get thrust of this, read about how to make fire by friction, and then try to do it. or read about flintknapping and then try to do it. no wait, just try to find the right kind of rocks in nature or roam the woods looking for deer antler to make a billet and pressure flaker. the difference here is that nature is the teacher in wilderness survival,which is actually a part of the dao.
now, all this arguing and insulting back and forth can be enormous fun. i don’t really care if you’re doing it for fun or because of uncontrollabel personal issues. i encourage everyone to take it like true tao ducks though, whose backs the water flows right off of. y’all are dissin plato for bein a schmuck, but y’all are bein schmucks too by playin along. better to do it in fun, lest you become what you despise. i’m sure plato’s having a ball laughing at all the feathers he’s ruffled.
as for access to the ancietn chinese–there is no virute in this, per se. that stuff is so hard to read most, say about 1.3 billion, modern chinese can’t understand it. it is very subject to interpretation. you could argue that thomas cleary knows as much if not more than nan because he too reads ancient chinese. the only thing you can say for sure about those ancient texts is that people argue about their real meanings. here and in the west. you must learn from the qi and the dao. these are the only legitimate teachers. book knowledge is meaningless, almost useless, and of even lesser value. anyone who claims to be knowledgeable about anything based on book knowledge alone is building a house of cards in a draughfty room.
i can read all i want about wilderness survival and let on to know all about it. i can discuss the methods and theories. until i go out into the woods and practice it, i know nothing. and the harsh reality of that will hit me the first time i really need it. if you really wanna get thrust of this, read about how to make fire by friction, and then try to do it. or read about flintknapping and then try to do it. no wait, just try to find the right kind of rocks in nature or roam the woods looking for deer antler to make a billet and pressure flaker. the difference here is that nature is the teacher in wilderness survival,which is actually a part of the dao.
Amen!
“The schools that are authentic do all produce the same experiences.”
This concept embodied in this quote is somewhat related to Max’s comments earlier that “at their heart” the teachings of true Buddhism and true Taoism are the same.
These positions are shared with (if not heavily influenced by) Bill Bodri and might be called “the Same Path Theory”.
The Same Path Theory can be summarized as: all true spiritual paths will produce the same progressive physical, spiritual, and energetic changes and will, if successful, reach the same ultimate goal.
As I’ve said before, I fundamentally disagree with this theory. I know a bit more than probably most of you about Christianity and Judaism — both mainline religion and esoteric stuff — and I think Bodri’s and others attempts to show how practitioners of these religions are actually believing and experiencing the same things as Buddhists or Taoists is ludicrous. I also think that applying the Single Path Theory to say that Buddhism and Taoism are fundamentally the same is equally misleading (although there are certainly similarities to Buddhism and Buddhist-influenced Taoism).
The Single Path Theory is arrogant past the point of reason because it says to practitioners of various schools: Youre not experiencing what you think you’re experiencing, youre not going for the goal you think you’re going for, and you havent arrived at the place you think youve arrived at.
These schools, by the way, have practiced certain methods and reported certain consistent results, over and over, for thousands of years, yet a guy like Bodri say, “oh, well, you know, you’re wrong about your results, that’s really Buddhism”.
No, it’s not really Buddhism. Christ wasn’t Buddhist. He believed radically different things than Buddha and (if you believe both their myths) evolved into a radically different being that Buddha. So too followers of Christ and Buddha believe radically different things, are on radically different paths, and will evolve into radically different beings if they reach the apex of their practice. This is also, I believe, the fate of Taoists and Buddhists. As I said some time ago, they are climbing different mountains.
The challenge for a guy like plato or Bodri (or for that matter any of us) is to say “ah, I see you are climbing a DIFFERENT mountain, and that in fact you will end up in a very DIFFERENT place than me, AND THAT YOUR END RESULT IS NOT NECESSARILY ANY WORSE THAN THE PLACE THAT MY PATH WILL LEAD ME”.
Got to go now, Ill try to pick this up later.
Whatever one thinks about Falung gong… actually that was a very interesting part of the lectures, that each proper school leads there students to their own heaven…
p> I will not define the word dharma ..>
Well, then: You weren’t ready for actually having this discussion, were you? For all of your vitriolic displays, when it comes down to actually discussing the points (and you’ve only listed two of them), you balk. Some 4th of July this has been.
Nevertheless, you’ve primed the pump; maybe i can help.
The quote, below, may have something to do with your point.“According to sutra the root of cyclic existence is our misconception that things have true existence. According to tantra this conception and the energy wind on which it rides are responsible. Since mind and energy are always together, tantric practice concentrates on halting the activity of the energy winds which serve as mounts for such [mis]conceptions. By gathering these coarser energies into the central channel of the subtle body and by causing them to remain and dissolve there, their activity ceases as does that of the coarser mental states allied to them. This allows subtle awareness to become active. One of the main purposes of tantric practice is to make manifest the actual clear light, namely subtle awareness in a blissful state experiencing reality.”
This one is more cryptic (Taoist text), but talks perhaps near the subject i think you’re bringing up.
~ begin quote ~
There are two ways of cultivating refinement. The Classic of Wenshi says, “If you can see the vital spirit, you gain lasting life; if you can forget the vital spirit, you gain transcendent life.”
Forgetting the vital spirit means emptiness climaxes, quietude is attained, and vitality naturally transmutes into energy, energy naturally transmutes into spirit, and spirit naturally returns to emptiness. This is the study of the Great Way of absolute nonresistance.
Seeing the vital spirit means taking emptiness and quietude for substance, the firing process for function, refining vitality into energy, refining energy into spirit, and refining spirit back into emptiness. This is the study of driving energy by spirit.
~ end quote ~
from Practical Taoism, pg 1
“The quote, below, may have something to do with your point.”
Actually, it doesn’t. 🙂
***
Defining Dharma is a trap. I will not fall for this. How about I ask Michael to define “Tao?” C’mon!
Or even better, who would be asking these question? lol!
In college I got a bad case of it. Too much reading, analyzing, thinking. Thats the main reason I got into the martial arts. Punches, kicks, chokes, they are real and happened Now. Nothing to argue or think about.
Thats what I admire about people like Eckhart Tolle. He has nothing to give or teach. Whatever ‘enlightenment’ you may recieve from him comes from taking things away.
Peace
Michael
Since were bringing up good dharma books, I discovered a gem a while ago:
“Nagarjuna’s philosophy as presented in the Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra”, by K. Venkata Ramanan. It is Nagarjuna’s extended commentary on the heart sutra.The translator, K. Ramanan, was born in India where he began an education that he then finished in England and then in China. In China he discovered the only surviving version of the above text–the Chinese version.
It is very much more thorough and clarifying than the (that is, Nagarjuna’s) dry rebuttals of his detractors that are generally studied with regard to Nagarjuna. This text is not part of the Tibetan corpus even, so far as I know (although they have of course numerous texts of equal elegance).One of many interesting points discussed is that of Sunyata being an accurate conceptual system (prapanca) only, whereas, as he points out was the case even in his day, it is often confused with the Absolute and also it is confused as being the goal, an end state, which is an example of exactly the kind of thinking it (Sunyata as an accurate conceptual system that guides one in the direction of non-dual experiencing) is trying to counter: The cognitive habit of (grasping obsessively) experience which has already been inaccurately and habitually concretized (reified) into language based, or more subtle, mental fixations; where the problem is not conceptual perception of reality or realities per se, but the identification with them as being final, as fixed, as absolutely real, rather than as only versions of a more fundamental, sun-like, dynamic reality (don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!).
The Abslolute is here unabashedly defined–seeing as he’s already been sure to point out that “sunyata” is only the finger pointing at the moon–as “that which is beyond all determinations and yet is not exclusive of anything determinate, and therefore is itself undeniable”. But to leave it at that is to leave it at a dry, barren intellectual sort of “englightenment”, namely, freedom from limiting, partial viewpoints, but without groking attunement to the primordial presence-awareness this finger is pointing at, to heavily paraphrase Nagarjuna: Thus meditation practice.
I’m glad Nagarjuna took the time to define terms in clarification of his teaching; there is nothing wrong with doing so as long as you are truly accurate in your presentation and warning that it is only that; a conceptual presentation that can lead to the deeper genunine experience: Prajna into Jnana
Simon
Spyrlex,
I happen to totally agree with your position. It is totally reductionist to claim everyone’s experience is the same. And I also agree with the Falun gong position as well- each religion leads to a particular experience or “heaven” in the midplanes that i would describe as a parking lot for that group consciousness.You have to wake up from the group and cultivate your own vehicle and continue on the path of individuation if you wish to travel closer to the truth.
Why I like Taoist alchemy is because it lays that foundation from the start. It is very hard to break away from the group heavens after you’ve lost your individual substance (jing) after death.michael
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.