My personal comments on Chuang Tzu, Taoism, Buddhism
-
Moved over from metta lounge 2, just some of my thoughts and understanding and I understand some may find it too long, repetitive and confusing (I'm not a good writer) though I guess sometimes being repetitive and elaborative makes a subject clearer to the reader (like the sutras being repetitive) and those who have no glimpses of awareness/presence/non-duality may find the subject incomprehensible and even 'boring' because it makes no sense (but those who have certain glimpses, which i'm sure most of us interested in spirituality will have had, may recognise some of what is being said...):
Originally posted by werther:showAccording to our moderator Thusness and from what I read, Chuang Tzu has insights/experience on the luminosity and vitality aspect of our true nature, but cant be compared with Lao Tzu who he thinks is truly enlightened (my Master Ven Shen Kai also said that Lao Tzu is a Pratyekabuddha, so did many other Buddhist masters like Zen Master Han Shan, and some lamas and rinpoches, see http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/210722?page=2... of course not everyone will agree but they may not have read or understood Tao Te Ching yet)
From an old conversation with Thusness some years back:
[23:09] AEN: hi
[23:09] AEN: u used to say lao tzu was enlightened rite?
[23:09] Thusness: yes
[23:10] AEN: how about chuang tzu?
[23:10] AEN: and did tao te ching teach impermanence, conditioned arising, etc?
[23:10] Thusness: not as precise like buddhism. Buddhism almost make it a science.
[23:10] AEN: oic
[23:11] AEN: then how about chuang tzu
[23:11] Thusness: the steps are so precise.
[23:11] AEN: ya
[23:11] AEN: true.. tao te ching is so short
[23:11] AEN: do u read chuang tzu teachings?
[23:11] Thusness: chuang tzu is different, only the no-doing aspect until luminosity is clear.
[23:12] AEN: icic
[23:12] AEN: so
[23:12] Thusness: but lao-tze is deep and profound. What really has been spoken.
[23:12] AEN: is there anyone else in taoism as enlightened as lao tzu
[23:12] AEN: icic..
[23:12] Thusness: nothing really only the 5000 words.
[23:19] Thusness: even with all our experience when reading the text, will make us feel shallow.
[23:19] Thusness: will put us into stillness and at once in line with Tao.
[23:19] Thusness: The Thusness simply flows.
[23:20] Thusness: it is a different approach. But not to belittle tao de jing.-----------------------------
Thusness: coz true taoist masters know that it will reach tao
Thusness: and come to the experience of the true power of self-so.
Thusness: zhi ran
Thusness: a strength that just grows by itself
Thusness: self arise
AEN: icic..
Thusness: naturally luminous
AEN: oic
Thusness: so the elimination is based on such understanding because they know it.
Thusness: they have already experienced it.
AEN: oic
Thusness: so they are not afraid to tell their followers to eliminate till none.
AEN: icic..
Thusness: as long as it is not theoritical and they truely practice, they will know.-----------------------------
Regarding Chuang Tzu I see that his teachings on acceptance/surrendering into complete nothingness, dropping/letting go/'forgetting self', spontaneity/self-so, transformation/impermanence, stillness, 'emptiness' [note that it is not the same as 'emptiness' in buddhism in the sense of dependent origination/the ultimate nature of all reality/all phenomena], non-abiding and non-action (wu-wei) as being compatible with Buddhist teachings.. though they are not about the ultimate insight into Emptiness. Also when he used the metaphor of the mirror (he used it numerous times and is a major theme in some of his texts) for Tao it is clearly refering to the aspect of our luminous-clarity/awareness. The practice of non-doing and dropping until 'luminosity is clear' is an important practice for us all. However the experience/realisation of our nature as luminous clarity does not need to come with the insight into its ultimate nature (emptiness) or the insight of the pathlessness of non-duality of subject/object as the nature of reality than a stage of experience with entry/exit.
(Also do take note that the mirror/consciousness may become misunderstood as an eternal observer observing its reflections (experience), as if the transient are objects separate from the mirror that comes and goes within an unchanging background (or a mirror)... this is due to a subtle separation and 'solidifying' the luminous clarity into an entity/a permanent Self (with the result of every transience experienced as 'not self', which is a duality), and thus non-dual is not realised/experienced [that the transience is in fact the mirror]. This is the case of the experience of the pure I AM and this is still dualistic, the insight that there is no observer apart from observed is not present. There is no eternal witness, only a witnessing inseparable from the flow of phenomenality... No watcher needed, the process itself knows and rolls as Venerable Buddhaghosa writes in the Visuddhi Magga. The tendency to remain [as the Witness] or sink back to a Source is an illusion, the working of our karmic bonds to a 'Self'... in reality the Appearance is the Source, there is no mirror reflecting, manifestation alone IS -- sound hears, scenery sees, the dust is the mirror)
Chuang Tzu also talks about letting go of the 'self'/forgetting the self [dropping all concepts, sense of personality and fundamentally all constriction to the body/mind or the illusory sense of a center or a separate observer, experiencer or doer apart from observed/experience/deed] and 'surrendering to the sequence of things' through non-doing. It is also realising and surrendering to the 'force' of spontaneity, self-so, like the Tao/Buddha-Nature or the vitality/intelligence/luminous-awareness that allows you to move and walk but such action is not done by a 'doer' -- like when walking there is just walking without thinking about it or thinking "left foot" "right foot" -- everything is just natural, 'non-dual' and 'non-volitional' -- it is simply a mere happening. That is non-action (wu wei). Its a completely surrendering to whatever appears in that moment (a.k.a "the sequence of things") that 'self' and 'changes of life' are forgotten, there is no 'continuity of an entity', only fingers typing on keyboard, sound arising, the pure suchness of transiency. No movement, no coming from, no going to, only thus. Completely still yet ever flowing. Thusness just writes it perfectly: "In non-dual experience, the true face of impermanence nature is experienced as happening without movement, change without going anywhere. This is the “what is” of impermanence. It is just so." Surrendering into nothingness, void of self, and everything is simply 'self-so'.
Thusness:
Unmanifested is the manifestation,
The no-thing of everything,
Completely still yet ever flowing,
This is the spontaneous arising nature of the source.
Simply Self-So.
Use self-so to overcome conceptualization.
Dwell completely into the incredible realness of the phenomenal world.----
Chuang Tzu:
"Besides, we all talk of 'me.' How do you know what is this 'me' that we speak of? You dream you are a bird, and soar to heaven, or dream you are a fish, and dive into the ocean's depths. And you cannot tell whether the man now speaking is awake or in a dream. A man feels a pleasurable sensation before he smiles, and smiles before he thinks how he ought to smile. Resign yourself to the sequence of things, forgetting the changes of life, and you shall enter into the pure, the divine, the One."
----I have discussed some of the verses of Chuang Tzu with Thusness last year on this. Thusness said however that the 'forgetting of self' is not the same as the insight of anatta (no-self) as the pathless/everpresent nature of reality. Through forgetting the self one can have glimpses of non-dual experience, as Chuang Tzu said entering the pure, the One/the Divine, though may not necessary be the non-dual insights (i.e. the realisation that observer is the observed, no subject/object duality, as the everpresent nature of reality rather than as a stage with entry and exit)
I have had experiences/glimpses of non-dual experience through 'forgetting the self' as i have written in the other topic Death, Consciousness, Nondual Perception; and the 'dropping of self' has led to the experience of intense luminosity... but it has not been an ongoing experience for me; I did not 'realise' non-dual reality as a pathless reality. Nevertheless it is still important as a practice for us... (the practice of dropping self, surrendering/non-doing)
Also if I remember correctly Thusness mentioned that the experience of vitality which Chuang Tzu stressed also leads to the experience of a sort of absorption in oneness/vitality pervading and giving rise to the universe... though I think not necessarily the same as the insight of non-duality as a pathless reality.
As I have written in the Comments section of http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html based on what Thusness have said in the past, the words in Bold are from my post while the comments are by Thusness.
"First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing of personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from the arising and ceasing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. (related article: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/07/bernadette-roberts-interview.html) This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).
To illustrate further due to the importance of this seal, I would like to borrow a quote from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html)
‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’…
If a practitioner were to feel that he has gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’ or takes that ‘there is just mere sound’, then this experience is again distorted. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so.
Well said! Just a little more emphasis: This is the seal of no-self and can be realized and experienced in all moments; not just a mere concept.
For a non dualist that has gained sufficient stability, practice takes a very different role. This is due to the thoroughness of seeing through the illusionary views of the sense of self, the entire mechanism that causes the split and the mechanism of how it ‘blinds’. Therefore after knowing the real cause and conditions, a non-dualist cannot resort back to a dualistic approach towards liberation and practice and meditation take very different roles. It becomes instant, dynamic, spontaneous and direct.
Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. For this is how the dual mind works. This purest state of presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous and emptiness nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically (also see my other friend Longchen’s article http://www.dreamdatum.com/meditation-spontaneous.html where I posted two of his articles including ‘How is nonduality like?’ in this forum)
‘Purest’ because it is the limit of the thought realm; beyond that is inconceivable by the conceptual mind. The mind conjures out this ‘state’ as it cannot penetrate its own depth. It does not allow itself to cease completely..
.
That said, I never doubted the importance of “concentration & absorption” in spiritual practices. It is also true that the strength of uninterrupted concentration may not be there even for one with insights (especially when one have just begun to have nondual realisations and the insight into emptiness is not yet there), and it has to go hand in hand with their new found insight of nonduality for stability, and also move into various graduation of nonduality. As mentioned earlier, there are no stages/appearances that are purer than any others – every state is equally pure and non-dual in nature. When the mind grasps pure awareness as ‘formless’, ‘thoughtless’, ‘attributeless’, and as the background reality.... the ‘fabric’ and ‘texture’ of pristine awareness as ‘forms’ is then missed. Nevertheless, whatever you commented is crucial especially for the first 3 (Thusness’s) stages of experience, and in these stages the problem would certainly be the lack of sustained meditation concentration as well as the tendency of trying to grasp intellectually... which is also why Thusness often emphasizes the importance of sitting.
The first 3 stages are before the arising of non-dual insight and the purpose of sustainability is to create sufficient gap between 2 moments of thoughts to allow the sensation of contrast between conceptual/non-conceptuality for the thinking mind to realize the possibility of going pre-symbolic thereby loosening its stubborn grips of a dualistic framework.
Sustained bare attention also gave rise to the realization that ‘inner’, ‘outer’, ‘space’, ‘time’ and even ‘body’ and ‘mind’ are all mere constructs. Freeing from these constructs, also give rise to the condition for non-dual insight to arise.
For the first 3 stages, practice takes the form of striving towards a certain stage of perfection whereas stages 4 onwards, practice moves from ‘efforting’ to natural luminosity and spontaneity."------------------------
There are many stages of experience with regards to luminosity and thoroughness of dropping, as well as the insights into the pathless/everpresent non-dual and empty nature... only after insights into our pathless [not a stage, no entry and exit but the everpresent 'nature'] nondual, no-self, emptiness nature can it be considered 'enlightenment' in Buddhism. This differentiates the Buddhist experience of enlightenment from the experiences of many mystics. Our moderator Thusness has written six stages of his experience, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ... we can say that the first two are more related to the Hindu/advaita experience [the realisation of our nature as luminosity/"pure consciousness" though mistaken as the Self/I AMness], the third more of Taoist [the thoroughness of dropping and realising spontaneity] while stage 4 is the beginning into the insights into anatta (no-self) and emptiness nature essential in Buddhism for true liberation, and to have the correct understanding of Presence/Buddha-nature. However Stage 1~3 are nevertheless quite commonly experienced by Buddhists as well depending on his practice and understanding... but Buddhists do not necessarily have to go through them and they are not necessarily 'the Buddhist's experience', though the factors of intense luminosity and dropping will be there through correct practice [through the practice of vipassana/insight-practice one may skip the first few stages and arrive at insights of the pathless nondual reality in a more gradual and systematic manner]
But it should also be noted that all 'stages of experience' are just relative truths, the ultimate reality is like what Zen Master Huang Po always said, that both enlightened and sentient beings are only One Mind, One Reality... and in his usual 'sudden' style he would throw out all ideas of stages of enlightenment, including the 10 Bodhisattva bhumis. I think with correct understanding that is not necessary but there is a very important message behind this. That there is only One Reality/One Mind and it always is! Degrees of clarity are all relative Appearances of What Already Is, all Appearances is the Source, and so to explain some of what Huang Po said, in my own words and understanding only... whether you are a sentient being or a Bodhisattva having traversed the ten bhumis, you will only arrive at this One Mind - ever - that which is ever-present and has never left 'you' because it IS You or rather, it is All There Is already, and find that all your efforts in practicing to 'attain' something is all but a dream... you will never arrive at reality or a 'higher reality' because reality is all there Is, already. Everything is already empty and luminous.
Thusness: Everything is the One Reality incorporating causes, conditions and luminosity of our Empty nature as One and inseparable.
Thusness also said in the blog:
“It should also be noted that the stages are nothing authentic or any indications of achievement; it is wrote simply for the purpose of sharing to ‘JonLS’ when condition arose; there is no need to overemphasize anything.
If the stages are seen as gradual ascendance, the essence is again lost completely. All described stages are mere appearances and no one appearance is purer than the other.”
-----------------------------
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
Stage 3: Entering into a state of nothingness
Somehow something is blocking the natural flow of my innermost essence and preventing me from re-living the experience. Presence is still there but there is no sense of ‘totality’. It was both logically and intuitively clear that ‘I’ is the problem. It is the ‘I’ that is blocking; it is the ‘I’ that is the limit; it is the ‘I’ that is the boundary but why can’t I do away with it? At that point in time it didn’t occur to me that I should look into the nature of awareness and what awareness is all about, instead, I was too occupied with the art of entering into a state of oblivious to rid the ‘I’...this continues for the next 13+ years (in between of course there are many other minor events and the experience of total presence did occur many times but with few months of gap)…
However I came to one important understanding –
The ‘I’ is the root cause of all artificialities, true freedom is in spontaneity. Surrender into complete nothingness and everything simply Self So.
---------------That's the essence of Taoist practices. :) But do note that the dropping [Thusness: The practitioner drops away mind, body, knowledge...everything. There is no insight, there is no luminosity there is only total allowing of whatever that happens, happen in its own accord. All senses including consciousness are shut and fully absorbed. Awareness of 'anything' is only after emerging from that state.] must be accompanied with the experience of intense luminosity (clarity/awareness/presence), as total surrender without strong luminosity may make one become trance-like and with certain chants may even invite spirit possessions! With intense luminosity this will not happen, as the luminosity will prevent such spiritual interferences... but the experience of intense luminosity such as through self-inquiry will also have its own set of problems including insomnia due to a strong attachment to 'Self' and the conscious aspect of Presence [prior to realisation of Anatta, Pure Presence is experienced and thought to be the ultimate Self/I AM, a problem pervasive in the hindu teachings] and has to be countered by dropping....
I remember at one time one guy in my dharma center spoke about entering into a oblivious state of absorption without awareness as being 'the goal' while quoting some Taoist sources including Chuang Tzu I think, but my dharma teacher corrected him in saying full awareness is more important, for gaining wisdom and liberation. So our practices may differ depending on where you learnt it from... we should not 'practice wrongly', and also we must not give people the wrong advise and medicine. Also, I think Chuang Tzu (but maybe other Taoist masters may have taught differently) made it clear that the result of total stillness is complete clarity 'clearer than water', resulting a mirror-bright clarity, "The sage's mind in stillness is the mirror of Heaven and earth, the glass of the ten thousand things."
With regards to 'entering oblivion', it may be a remedy to counter certain problems faced by practitioners experiencing intense luminosity... nevertheless it is more important to experience full clarity of Presence and the nature of Presence rather than to enter into absorption. In a very old post from more than 3 years ago at the topic All there is is Presence, Longchen posted:
"What happens when presence is eliminated. No thought, no presence... then could this be a blank?
I do have a time when i meditated into a blank. No perception. it was when the mind 'moves' again that i realise that i was in the blank."To which Thusness replied:
"The blankness is a form of absorption where the knowing faculty of consciousness is temporarily suspended. Complete clarity and Presence without a 'Self' is more crucial.
"
(continued in URL)The practice of entering into oblivion/nothingness/absorption/samadhi [like Taoist] or Samatha practices, or self-inquiry [like Advaita/Hindu] taught in other spiritual traditions are not really peculiar to the teachings of Buddhism... even though self-inquiry are taught in some buddhist traditions and 'dropping' is also practiced. With regards to self-inquiry, there are some methods, such as self-inquiry that leads to a quick, sudden glimpse of Presence and the understanding of IT as our true self, but its nature may be misunderstood as the I AM/Eternal Witness, with a lack of insight into no-self/non-duality/emptiness. So it depends on the individual practitioner and they should practice what suits them and also be aware of the dangers. I happen to be practicing self inquiry but it may not suit everyone, though Thusness occasionally gave such advise (depending on conditions) he has said he would generally refer people to Insight practices instead.
So generally speaking practicing insight/vipassana/vipashyana under the guidance of an experienced/enlightened teacher is the safest, systematic and gradual, and is the 'proper' path for a Buddhist and taught by the Buddha and Buddha alone [peculiar only to Buddhism] to develope insights [in fact entering samadhi/practicing samatha or self inquiry alone will not lead to non-dual/emptiness insights -- one eventually has to practice vipashyana/insight or the contemplation on the nature of reality in order to realise the pathless non-dual & empty nature of reality, which is not a stage of experience with entry and exit], and generally will not have the dangers of facing those problems as what I have just mentioned.
Anyway with regards to Chuang Tzu, I have not studied his texts but have come across some quotes which I liked.
Tung-kuo Tzu asked Chuang Tzu "Where is the Tao?"
`It is everywhere,' replied Chuang Tzu.
Tung-kuo Tzu said "You must be more specific."
"It is in the ant" said Chuang Tzu.
"Why go down so low?"
"It is in the weeds."
"Why even lower?"
"It is in a potsherd."
"Why still lower?"
"It is in the excrement and urine," said Chuang Tzu.There is nothing that is not so-and-so. There is nothing that is not all right. [ii]
The space under the sky is occupied by all things in their unity. [xxi]
“The perfect man employs his mind as a mirror. It grasps nothing; it refuses nothing; it receives but does not keep.”
"Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu, "Can a man really be without feelings?"
Chuang Tzu: "Yes."
Hui Tzu: "But a man who has no feelings-how can you call him a man?"
Chuang Tzu: "The Way gave him a face; Heaven gave him a form - why can't you call him a man?"
Hui Tzu: "But if you've already called him a man, how can he be without feelings?"
Chuang Tzu: "That's not what I mean by feelings. When I talk about having no feelings, I mean that a man doesn't allow good or bad/likes or dislikes to get in and do him harm. He just lets things be the way they are and doesn't try to help life along."
Hui Tzu: "If he doesn't try to help life along, then how can he keep himself alive?"
Chuang Tzu: "The Way gave him a face; Heaven gave him a form. He doesn't let good or bad/likes or dislikes get in and do him harm. You, now - you treat your spirit like an outsider. You wear out your energy, leaning on a tree and moaning, slumping at your desk and dozing - Heaven picked out a body for you and you use it to gibber about `hard' and `white'!" 10"
"http://www.taology.com/chinese/classic/English/chuangtzu13.htm
Section THIRTEEN - THE WAY OF HEAVEN
IT IS THE WAY OF HEAVEN to keep moving and to allow no piling up - hence the ten thousand things come to completion. It is the Way of the emperor to keep moving and to allow no piling up - hence the whole world repairs to his court. It is the Way of the sage to keep moving and to allow no piling up - hence all within the seas bow to him. Comprehending Heaven, conversant with the sage, walker in the six avenues and four frontiers of the Virtue of emperors and kings - the actions of such a man come naturally; dreamily, he never lacks stillness.
The sage is still not because he takes stillness to be good and therefore is still. The ten thousand things are insufficient to distract his mind - that is the reason he is still. Water that is still gives back a clear image of beard and eyebrows; reposing in the water level, it offers a measure to the great carpenter. And if water in stillness possesses such clarity, how much more must pure spirit. The sage's mind in stillness is the mirror of Heaven and earth, the glass of the ten thousand things.
Emptiness, stillness, limpidity, silence, inaction - these are the level of Heaven and earth, the substance of the Way and its Virtue. Therefore the emperor, the king, the sage rest in them. Resting, they may be empty; empty, they may be full; and fullness is completion.1 Empty, they may be still; still, they may move; moving, they may acquire. Still, they may rest in inaction; resting in inaction, they
-
too long cannot finish reading it ,maybe next time ,i agree with at the point that lao zi is higher that zhuangzi.zhuangzi is like a �士。who live in the country yard ,give shit about what happen in the cabinet.But zhuangzi is good at debating,laozi create a system framework for chinese culture.zhuang zi only see the picture of non action,but he didnot see the picture of action mean while non action.I respect zhuangzi ,but laozi theory is more doable
-
extracted from a china site
问：太上��是�佛��之化身？
ç”：太上è€�å�›æ˜¯å�ƒæ‰‹è§‚世音è�©è�¨ä¹‹åŒ–身。
问：修太上è€�å�›æ³•ï¼Œæœ‰æ— 出三界，了生æ»ä¹‹åŠŸå¾·ï¼Ÿ
ç”：æ±�能修到太上è€�å�›ä¸€æ ·ç½¢äº†ã€‚
问：佛教法门与�教法门有何差别？
ç”ï¼šä½›æ³•è®²å¿ƒï¼Œä¸ºæ— æ¼�å› ã€‚é�“法多讲è¿�气炼丹，为有æ¼�å› ã€‚å�„æœ‰å› ç¼˜ï¼Œå�„有功德。
For your referrences..but truthfulness yet to find out..
here is the whole article..very interesting..
-
Wah didn't know there's a limit to the number of words in sgforums... my latter part is cut off and deleted without notice. LOL
But I can't remember exactly what I posted already..
Continued:
The sage leans on the sun and moon, tucks the universe under his arm, merges himself with things, leaves the confusion and muddle as it is, and looks on slaves as exalted. Ordinary men strain and struggle; the sage is stupid and blockish. He takes part in ten thousand ages and achieves simplicity in oneness. For him, all the ten thousand things are what they are, and thus they enfold each other.
-----------
When a man does not dwell in self, things spontaneously reveal their forms to him. His movement is like that of water, his stillness like that of a mirror, his responses like those of an echo. Blank‑eyed, he seems to be lost; motionless, he has the clarity of water. Because he is one with it, he achieves harmony; should he ever reach out for it, he would lose it. Never does he go ahead of other men, but always follows in their wake.
More quotes: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Chuang%20Tzu.htm
-----------
Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi. Between Zhuangzi and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. (2, tr. Burton Watson 1968:49)
-----------
"Besides, we all talk of 'me.' How do you know what is this 'me' that we speak of? You dream you are a bird, and soar to heaven, or dream you are a fish, and dive into the ocean's depths. And you cannot tell whether the man now speaking is awake or in a dream. A man feels a pleasurable sensation before he smiles, and smiles before he thinks how he ought to smile. Resign yourself to the sequence of things, forgetting the changes of life, and you shall enter into the pure, the divine, the One."
-----------
But I have to add, the religion of taoism nowadays is very different. i.e. religious Taoism. As Longchen said before, "There is some similarities in the beginning as the Founders expound on certain fundamental truths.
But what the various religions have become is utterly different now."This is the same for ALL other religions including even Christianity. (the general Christianity, with exception of certain contemplative/mystical Christian groups which emphasize on self-realisation or rather in their terms realising union with god or ultimate reality)
With regards to religious Taoism IMHO there are many elements related to spirit mediumship etc which imho are best to be avoided... they are very different from the teachings of lao tzu, unrelated in that sense... but rather are dealings with spirit realm... and other related superstitions all brings us no closer to enlightenment and simply increases superstition, dependency and our affinity with the spirit/lower realms.
As my Master said Taoism starting from Zhang Tian Shi has deviated so much from the original teachings of Lao Tzu... it is not the 'Tao' that Lao Tzu is speaking of. Hope it doesn't offend anyone, just my honest opinion on these matters. :)
Word count: 5000+/- words… LOL -
Originally posted by Bodhi hut:
extracted from a china site
问：太上��是�佛��之化身？
ç”：太上è€�å�›æ˜¯å�ƒæ‰‹è§‚世音è�©è�¨ä¹‹åŒ–身。
问：修太上è€�å�›æ³•ï¼Œæœ‰æ— 出三界，了生æ»ä¹‹åŠŸå¾·ï¼Ÿ
ç”：æ±�能修到太上è€�å�›ä¸€æ ·ç½¢äº†ã€‚
问：佛教法门与�教法门有何差别？
ç”ï¼šä½›æ³•è®²å¿ƒï¼Œä¸ºæ— æ¼�å› ã€‚é�“法多讲è¿�气炼丹，为有æ¼�å› ã€‚å�„æœ‰å› ç¼˜ï¼Œå�„有功德。
For your referrences..but truthfulness yet to find out..
here is the whole article..very interesting..
太上è€�å�› is a divine of Taoism,but taosim is not all about è¿�气炼丹.上å“�é�“讲哲å¦ï¼Œä¸å“�é�“讲丹è�¯ï¼Œä¸‹å“�é�“讲神怪。 -
Originally posted by Bodhi hut:
extracted from a china site
问：太上��是�佛��之化身？
ç”：太上è€�å�›æ˜¯å�ƒæ‰‹è§‚世音è�©è�¨ä¹‹åŒ–身。
问：修太上è€�å�›æ³•ï¼Œæœ‰æ— 出三界，了生æ»ä¹‹åŠŸå¾·ï¼Ÿ
ç”：æ±�能修到太上è€�å�›ä¸€æ ·ç½¢äº†ã€‚
问：佛教法门与�教法门有何差别？
ç”ï¼šä½›æ³•è®²å¿ƒï¼Œä¸ºæ— æ¼�å› ã€‚é�“法多讲è¿�气炼丹，为有æ¼�å› ã€‚å�„æœ‰å› ç¼˜ï¼Œå�„有功德。
For your referrences..but truthfulness yet to find out..
here is the whole article..very interesting..
Thanks, interesting. But some forummers may be very against such ideas... (oh, and last year one forummer even complained my comments on lao tzu as being 'enlightened' to my dharma teacher, among a number of other things including my comments on Jesus... lol) so I'll just give it benefit of doubt. So anyway whether Lao Tzu is bodhisattva emanation is not that important, it's the content of his wisdom that matters... and how do we know if he "got substance"? I think in the end we still have to practice sincerely as a Buddhist to see for ourselves, then we'll know what is spoken by experience... no need to convince anyone.
Whatever my Master (Ven Shen Kai), some other masters or our moderator Thusness have spoken are out of their own experience... when my Master said that Lao Tzu is a Pratyekabuddha he is not making a statement for the purpose of labelling and comparing Lao Tzu with Buddha or anything like that, but he sincerely sees the truth in what is spoken, and my master have commented that Tao Te Ching is a great work of 'qing jing wu wei'. He wouldn't have said anything like that if he didn't see the subtance of the teachings. So anyway, they are not forcing us to believe but just a reference for us to consider... when we have true experience we'll know. But we don't have to follow Tao Te Ching because we're Buddhist, so all these are not that important after all. Being a Buddhist, I have no intentions of promoting Taoism as well.
In Taoism there's the saying that Lao Tzu went to India to teach Shakyamuni Buddha, which is ridiculous in our eyes... so in the eyes of Taoists it may be the same when we talk about Lao Tzu as this or that... so not to overemphasize anything.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Wah didn't know there's a limit to the number of words in sgforums... my latter part is cut off and deleted without notice. LOL
But I can't remember exactly what I posted already..
Continued:
The sage leans on the sun and moon, tucks the universe under his arm, merges himself with things, leaves the confusion and muddle as it is, and looks on slaves as exalted. Ordinary men strain and struggle; the sage is stupid and blockish. He takes part in ten thousand ages and achieves simplicity in oneness. For him, all the ten thousand things are what they are, and thus they enfold each other.
-----------
When a man does not dwell in self, things spontaneously reveal their forms to him. His movement is like that of water, his stillness like that of a mirror, his responses like those of an echo. Blank‑eyed, he seems to be lost; motionless, he has the clarity of water. Because he is one with it, he achieves harmony; should he ever reach out for it, he would lose it. Never does he go ahead of other men, but always follows in their wake.
More quotes: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Chuang%20Tzu.htm
-----------
Once Zhuangzi dreamt he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn't know he was Zhuangzi. Suddenly he woke up and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuangzi. But he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who had dreamt he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi. Between Zhuangzi and a butterfly there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things. (2, tr. Burton Watson 1968:49)
-----------
"Besides, we all talk of 'me.' How do you know what is this 'me' that we speak of? You dream you are a bird, and soar to heaven, or dream you are a fish, and dive into the ocean's depths. And you cannot tell whether the man now speaking is awake or in a dream. A man feels a pleasurable sensation before he smiles, and smiles before he thinks how he ought to smile. Resign yourself to the sequence of things, forgetting the changes of life, and you shall enter into the pure, the divine, the One."
-----------
But I have to add, the religion of taoism nowadays is very different. i.e. religious Taoism. As Longchen said before, "There is some similarities in the beginning as the Founders expound on certain fundamental truths.
But what the various religions have become is utterly different now."This is the same for ALL other religions including even Christianity. (the general Christianity, with exception of certain contemplative/mystical Christian groups which emphasize on self-realisation or rather in their terms realising union with god or ultimate reality)
With regards to religious Taoism IMHO there are many elements related to spirit mediumship etc which imho are best to be avoided... they are very different from the teachings of lao tzu, unrelated in that sense... but rather are dealings with spirit realm... and other related superstitions all brings us no closer to enlightenment and simply increases superstition, dependency and our affinity with the spirit/lower realms.
As my Master said Taoism starting from Zhang Tian Shi has deviated so much from the original teachings of Lao Tzu... it is not the 'Tao' that Lao Tzu is speaking of. Hope it doesn't offend anyone, just my honest opinion on these matters. :)
Word count: 5000+/- words… LOL庄周梦è�¶ã€‚or è�¶æ¢¦åº„周。i don't know whether is so called non-duality.物我两忘。
��于江湖
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
庄周梦�。or �梦庄周。i don't know whether is so called non-duality.物我两忘。
��于江湖
No, it isn't. Zhuangzi is just thinking conceptually in this case.
Non-duality is the basis of Reality. Non-duality means that there is no-self. Because that there is no-self, there is just the experience without the experiencer(self). Self is a false impression is that superimposed into the flow of phemomena.
Non-dual means 'no two thing'. Two things refers to the conventional understanding of 'self'(first thing) experiencing the 'world'(second thing). This self experiencing the world is a false impression (ignorance). Because the 'self' thinks it is a separate thing from the world, it keep trying to modify it(extra arising desire)... to its fulility. This is the basis of suffering.
-
Originally posted by longchen:
No, it isn't. Zhuangzi is just thinking conceptually in this case.
Non-duality is the basis of Reality. Non-duality means that there is no-self. Because that there is no-self, there is just the experience without the experiencer(self). Self is a false impression is that superimposed into the flow of phemomena.
yes this self thing really confuse me.first i think the concious self is not true ,the subconcious which i think it's Alaya is ture ,then buddha said æ³•æ— è‡ªæ€§ã€‚æˆ‘æ— è‡ªæ€§ã€‚ä¸€åˆ‡ç”±å› ç¼˜å’Œå�ˆè€Œç”Ÿã€‚mean everything is delusion or everything except dharma self.dharma self is not self generate either.And sometimes buddha said ,he teach u there is no 法。or法身，is also a expedient way of teaching because he do not want ppl get attached to this concept. -
or the 法 or 法身 is there ,but it's universal,everyone share the same and the holy 法 or 法身 ，then there is no self.the self is only a container or residence for法 or 法身 temporaly
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
or the 法 or 法身 is there ,but it's universal,everyone share the same and the holy 法 or 法身 ，then there is no self.the self is only a container or residence for法 or 法身 temporaly
No, this is not entirely correct also
Right in the very beginning, there is no-self. There is no small self that is in the 'Fa Shen' (Dharmakaya).
There is just the experiences based on conditioned arising.
So,during the path to enlightenment, there is no progressive stages of the self dissapearing away . Right in the beginning, there is no-self.
-
So, there is no progressive stages of the self dissapearing away during the path to enlightenment. Right in the beginning, there is no-self.
sorry this sentence ,i didn't get u,also it's said words cannot carry the truth of Dharma, but could u explain more explicitly.so i can clear my doubt
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
yes this self thing really confuse me.first i think the concious self is not true ,the subconcious which i think it's Alaya is ture ,then buddha said æ³•æ— è‡ªæ€§ã€‚æˆ‘æ— è‡ªæ€§ã€‚ä¸€åˆ‡ç”±å› ç¼˜å’Œå�ˆè€Œç”Ÿã€‚mean everything is delusion or everything except dharma self.dharma self is not self generate either.And sometimes buddha said ,he teach u there is no 法。or法身，is also a expedient way of teaching because he do not want ppl get attached to this concept.Alayavijnana actually designates an impure consciousness, and is the source of samsara through the seeds it contains of affliction and action. It is designated from the point of view of containing the traces of action and affliction. When these traces are exhausted, the basis for the designation "alaya" is exhausted. Or rather, transformed.
Transformed to what? It transforms into the great round mirror wisdom, through insight into non-duality. Thusness said in an old post to Longchen at Non-dual and karmic patterns, "it is a wisdom that transformed totally the wrong view of phenomena as “out there or in here” to all as the manifestation of our pristine awareness due its emptiness nature. It is the experience of Dharmakaya." Dharmakaya = 法身
So not to mistake 法身 dualistically as if it is a separate self, such ideas are false. 法身 is talking about a Non-Dual reality in which the 'Self' experiencing the 'World' is seen as false, there is only One Reality/One Mind, and it is inseparable from the world in its entirety... usually we think we are the experiencer of the world... but in reality it's more like the universe experiences itself by itself, and "we" are all of that. The "universe" is the 5 skhandas arising or 18 dhatus according to causes and conditions, its true nature is empty and luminous. And our true nature is empty of any separation/self -- 自性 is like an ocean, it is all-pervading, omnipresent and boundless.
This is the meaning of é�’é�’ç¿ ç«¹ï¼Œå°½æ˜¯æ³•èº«ï¼›éƒ�éƒ�é»„èŠ±ï¼Œæ— é�žèˆ¬è‹¥
You can read a more detailed article at http://www.jenchen.org.sg/vol9no3a.htm
BTW when I said 'universe experience itself by itself' it should not be taken that universe has inherent existence, in fact all are mere appearances due to dependent arising, there is no "the universe" out there... as Longchen would say there is "no solidity"... only sensations and perceptions arising due to conditions, giving rise to appearance of solidity and form and location but are actually just appearances empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, form or location. That is the empty universe.
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
So, there is no progressive stages of the self dissapearing away during the path to enlightenment. Right in the beginning, there is no-self.
sorry this sentence ,i didn't get u,also it's said words cannot carry the truth of Dharma, but could u explain more explicitly.so i can clear my doubt
Hi Rokkie,
This is very hard to explain.
This 'sense of self' or 'I', 'me', 'mine' are concepts learnt.
With or without the arising sense of an 'I', the experience of perception, sensation and thinking will arising on its own accord. This arising is due to conditions or factors.
That means it is not the 'I' that is thinking. The thinking is self-arising based on conditions.
When this insight is seen, a practitioner will not invest too much effort in controlling or modifying what is seen as the world and others. This change in perception will lead to the clearer experience of non-duality.
-
thx for the explaination ,both of u.
but the sense of self ,i think is like ancient Greece phisolopher said.u saw with ur eyes ,u smell with ur nose ,u feel with ur mind,i think that's where self come from,ppl cannot what other experience or feel.and all that consititude how a person would be in general.without self.the world will be like,ur money is my money,ur house is my house,unlikely to happen.ppl can only get rid of the ostensible self. but very hard to get rid of the Alaya self.which i believe to be hard to accomplish for most of ppl.
ppl can only realise that self is arising and ceasing by cause.But ppl cannot think what other ppl think,that's so called self.
also.there is a form of 大爱 in many civilisitions.but every hard to accomplish.
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
thx for the explaination ,both of u.
but the sense of self ,i think is like ancient Greece phisolopher said.u saw with ur eyes ,u smell with ur nose ,u feel with ur mind,i think that's where self come from,ppl cannot what other experience or feel.and all that consititude how a person would be in general.without self.the world will be like,ur money is my money,ur house is my house,unlikely to happen.ppl can only get rid of the ostensible self. but very hard to get rid of the Alaya self.which i believe to be hard to accomplish for most of ppl.
ppl can only realise that self is arising and ceasing by cause.But ppl cannot think what other ppl think,that's so called self.
also.there is a form of 大爱 in many civilisitions.but every hard to accomplish.
Hi Rokkie,
He he... Thanks for the post. Sorry but i must clarify... this is not entirely true also.
No-self as an experience of enlightenment is not the same as selflessness in the conventional sense.
The 'selflessness' is a concept of sacrifice. 'No-self' means the you experience the world without a 'self'. You still can live in a house with property and do all the things conventionally. In fact, outwardly there may be no difference.... except at time, in non-dual, one may stare into blank space (ha ha), especially when the mind comes into a deep rest.
-
,no-self is also complicated.there are two kinds of no self.first äººæ— æˆ‘ã€‚then æ³•æ— æˆ‘ã€‚i still didn't get into these two concept fully.what i mean is u can experience into the blank space or non duality,temporarily.still u got to get back to reality to do work,sought of.But it's said é�“ä¸�å�¯é¡»ç¦»ã€‚å�¯é¡»ç¦»é�žé�“也。dharma is universal.it's everywhere and anytime.u cannot live without it.
what u said is still the bodily self.and nothing arising in ur mind ,u r going into a meditation stage.but i am talking about alaya self.or alaya doesnot have self.so i am talking about alaya。alaya is real but 没有自性。because it depend on cause and conditions.
sorry my text is confused
-
让我用ä¸æ–‡è¯´æŠŠã€‚佛法说阿赖耶识ä¸�自生，没有自性。so alaya is also not real ,like every object is ç”±å› ç¼˜æ‰€ç”Ÿã€‚so every object is not real it's delusion
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
,no-self is also complicated.there are two kinds of no self.first äººæ— æˆ‘ã€‚then æ³•æ— æˆ‘ã€‚i still didn't get into these two concept fully.what i mean is u can experience into the blank space or non duality,temporarily.still u got to get back to reality to do work,sought of.But it's said é�“ä¸�å�¯é¡»ç¦»ã€‚å�¯é¡»ç¦»é�žé�“也。dharma is universal.it's everywhere and anytime.u cannot live without it.
what u said is still the bodily self.and nothing arising in ur mind ,u r going into a meditation stage.but i am talking about alaya self.or alaya doesnot have self.so i am talking about alaya。alaya is real but 没有自性。because it depend on cause and conditions.
sorry my text is confused
Hi Rokkie,
Heh heh... Thanks so much for the post. I gets me to clarify things better.
So sorry for all the confusion that i have created.
A person still can be experiencing vivid non-duality (no-self) even when doing things. I can walk, eat and do many things without the sense of a separate self. It is possible.
When I meants as a blank stare is when mind goes into a deep rest. This is a deeper level of non-duality. Here, the mind cease to register impressions.
As for alaya, it is not a separate thing. Rather it is the subconscious aspect that is normally not noticed. All the various 'state' are just concepts. There is really no separate state, all are experienced due to conditioned arising. That meants, there is no object anywhere or elsewhere, not even a separate alaya. Alaya is experienced when the conditions arises.
just a sharing
-
i think all the confusion is necessary step for clarity.
佛法说阿赖耶识ä¸�自生，没有自性。so alaya is also not real ,like every object is ç”±å› ç¼˜æ‰€ç”Ÿã€‚so every object is not real it's delusion
this question is my real question.
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
i think all the confusion is necessary step for clarity.
佛法说阿赖耶识ä¸�自生，没有自性。so alaya is also not real ,like every object is ç”±å› ç¼˜æ‰€ç”Ÿã€‚so every object is not real it's delusion
this question is my real question.
Yes, something like that.
However, what we see is not an illusion.. But the solidity of what appears as object is not solid at all.
What we experience and even think of as solid is not solid at all. Our mind is used to focus the attention only on certain portion of its experience. This give rise to the false impression of solidity.
Solidity can mean anything even concept. For example the concept of failure can feel 'solid' when we think it is real and important.
-
Taiji is "æ— æ¬²æ— æ±‚,万法自然".
saw the verse in a repeated Movie of Jet Li, who's into Buddhism, Tai Ji Zhang San Feng), which roughly mean Freedom of desire, Freedom from seeking, All phenomena is originally Naturalness.
Like Guan Yin Bodhisattva who is always At Ease（观自在).
which can be quite general to people who had not see it more profoundly. so more explaination can be found in the insight of Buddhism./\
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
i think all the confusion is necessary step for clarity.
佛法说阿赖耶识ä¸�自生，没有自性。so alaya is also not real ,like every object is ç”±å› ç¼˜æ‰€ç”Ÿã€‚so every object is not real it's delusion
this question is my real question.
Alaya Vijnana is not real (i.e. it's empty). Also, Alayavijnana is known as impure and conditioned.
It's called impure because it is the container of traces. When those traces are removed, there is no more alaya-vijanana. There is instead the consciousness of the transformed basis, which is pure.
~ Loppon Namdrol
It is the 'storehouse' or tendencies of action and affliction. When this conditioning is removed through the awakening of insight, alaya is transformed into the great round mirror wisdom.
Know then that the foundational consciousness and its permeations are reciprocal causes in a similar fashion, for this consciousness is the cause for defiled states and defiled states are the causes for this consciousness. Why is this so? Because no other cause can be found apart from these two.
MahayanaSamgraha, 1.17
http://www.empty-universe.com/yogacara/mahayanasamgraha.htmWith regards to Alaya, I posted before:
Something about the idea of storage... in Thusness's opinion we must get rid of the entire idea of there being a 'place' where seeds are being 'stored'. 'Storage' is simply spoken out of convention.
There are always imprints and tendencies, nothing lost. It has always been like that. 'Stored' actually means an on going process to mean that the tendencies are there. But not to see it as a place keeping track of something.
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
Taiji is "æ— æ¬²æ— æ±‚,万法自然".
saw the verse in a repeated Movie of Jet Li, who's into Buddhism, Tai Ji Zhang San Feng), which roughly mean Freedom of desire, Freedom from seeking, All phenomena is originally Naturalness.
Like Guan Yin Bodhisattva who is always At Ease（观自在).
which can be quite general to people who had not see it more profoundly. so more explaination can be found in the insight of Buddhism./\
well said by Jet Li :)
-
Maybe unrelated, but just found something by Thusness in an old post... it's about dependent origination and emptiness and related to spontaneous arising. "By the way, over the years I have refined the term "naturalness" into "spontaneously arise due to conditions". When condition is, Presence Is. Not bounded within a space-time continuum. It helps to dissolve the centricity." "Since appearance is all there is and appearance is really the source, what gives rise to the diversities of appearances? “Sweetness” of sugar isn’t the “blueness” color of the sky. Same applies to “AMness”…Mr. Green all are equally pure, no one state is purer than the other, only condition differs. Conditions are factors that give appearances their ‘forms’. In Buddhism, pristine awareness and conditions are inseparable. Although there is non-dual in Advaita and no-self in Buddhism, Advaita rest in an “Ultimate Background” (making it dualistic Question ), whereas Buddhism eliminates the background completely and rest in the emptiness nature of phenomena; arising and ceasing is where pristine awareness is. In Buddhism, there is no eternality, only timeless continuity (timeless as in vividness in present moment but change and continue like a wave pattern). There is no changing thing, only change."