It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Interbeing" - a Taoist master explains how we are all connected

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


You inspired me to do some more learning. I came across this website:
www.knowbuddhism.info...

It explains how long after Lao-Tzu lived, common "Taoism" degenerated into spell-casting due to the inability of the common people to get the concept of yin-yang and Lao-Tzu's philosophical teachings (which are, undeniably, hard to grasp);

if you are referring to that sort of street-corner magickal Taoist (which I had never heard of), then you are absolutely correct, Hanh is a Buddhist monk, not a cheap spell-caster. I did not know that the term Taoist was derogatory; I used it as an adjective, and should not have, apparently.

Thank you for stimulating me to do some more research to expand my own understanding (even though you insulted me rather than adding to the discussion -- it might have been interesting!)





I don't follow any sort of Zen or Taoism.

I follow Indo-Tibetan Buddhism.

As you will discover, "Tibetan" Buddhism is main surviving branch of Indian Vajrayana.

Vajrayana was also widespread in China, with many emperors and khans becoming fervent students of lamas.
edit on 14-8-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Again, you are right, there are many forms of Buddhism. Hanh's is Vietnamese, so, where does he fit into your scheme?

I do not know all of the particular varieties of Buddhism, although I was under the impression they don't squabble like so-called "Christian" sects do. Shows what I know! At least I'm trying. At least I broke away from the fear-based "Christian" dogma.

My introduction to Zen and Buddhism was Alan Watts; I've also read the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the annotated Evans-Wentz version; as well as modern writers such as Hanh, Charlotte Joko Beck, Ray Grigg.

I am most drawn to Hanh and the Dalai-Lama (yep, Tibetan Buddhism, which I am already aware came out of Indian thought).



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I follow the teachings of the Mahasiddhas who founded Vajrayana.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


These teachings are based on Madhyamaka view.
edit on 14-8-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


Okay, good, I'll look at those. Thanks.
But, for the sake of the thread leading to education and denying ignorance (my own included), can you please give us a bit more meat? Your explanation in your own words?

Thanks again.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


Okay, good, I'll look at those. Thanks.
But, for the sake of the thread leading to education and denying ignorance (my own included), can you please give us a bit more meat? Your explanation in your own words?

Thanks again.



Explanation of ?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


Here is a reference to Zen in Buddhism that came from the second of your links (on Vajrayana):

Esoteric methods were naturally incorporated into Chinese Buddhism during the Tang Dynasty. Śubhakarasiṃha's most eminent disciple, Master Yixing (Ch. 一行), was a member of the Zen school. In such a way, in Chinese Buddhism there was no major distinction between exoteric and esoteric practices, and the northern school of Zen Buddhism even became known for its esoteric practices of dhāraṇīs and mantras.[15][16]


Please attempt to explain in your own words what your spiritual beliefs are, and why you are opposed to -- or disregard -- Zen or Tao concepts as part of basic early Buddhism.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Please attempt to explain in your own words what your spiritual beliefs are, and why you are opposed to -- or disregard -- Zen or Tao concepts as part of basic early Buddhism.



How does Tao figure into Buddhism at all?

I don't get it dude.

Buddhism is from India where it survived and developed for hundreds of years.

People say that Taoism influenced late Chan Buddhism, but that has nothing to do with me.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

How does Tao figure into Buddhism at all?

I don't get it dude.

Buddhism is from India where it survived and developed for hundreds of years.

People say that Taoism influenced late Chan Buddhism, but that has nothing to do with me.



The forms and variations of religious Daoism are incredibly diverse. They integrate a broad spectrum of academic, ritualistic, supernatural, devotional, literary, and folk practices with a multitude of results.

Buddhism and Confucianism particularly affected the way many sects of Daoism framed, approached, and perceived the Dao. The multitudinous branches of religious Daoism accordingly regard the Dao, and interpret writings about it, in innumerable ways. Thus, outside of a few broad similarities, it is difficult to provide an accurate yet clear summary of their interpretation of Dao.[16]

A central tenet within most varieties of religious Daoism is that the Dao is ever-present, but must be manifested, cultivated, and/or perfected in order to be realized. It is the source of the universe and the seed of its primordial purity resides in all things. The manifestation of Dao is De, which rectifies and invigorates the world with the Dao's radiance.[17]

Alternatively, philosophical Daoism regards the Dao as a non-religious concept; it is not a deity to be worshiped, nor is it a mystical Absolute in the religious sense of the Hindu Brahman. Joseph Wu remarked of this conception of Dao,

"Dao is not religiously available; nor is it even religiously relevant." The writings of Lao Tzu and Chang Tzu are tinged with esoteric tones and approach humanism and naturalism as paradoxes.[18] In contrast to the esotericism typically found in religious systems, the Dao is not transcendent to the self nor is mystical attainment an escape from the world in philosophical Daoism. The self steeped in Dao is the self grounded in its place within the natural universe. A person dwelling within the Dao excels in themselves and their activities.[19]


It's quite hard to grasp, even harder to describe, but in any case, Tao is the yin-yang Zen thing....how we are all connected, and everything is the way it is supposed to be; that things flow naturally, and should not be "fought".

Maybe I'm mistaken, but my very first introductions to Zen, the Tao, and Buddhism were all very closely tied together.
Perhaps it was just the combination of authors and writings that I studied. I don't see how you can extract Zen or Tao from Buddhism.

Hinduism is something else, as far as I know, but yes, India is the root source of Buddhism, no denying that.


As I've said, I'm a Western lay-person who is trying to figure these things out. They are heady and difficult, but I keep on persisting. I have had a couple of "enlightenment" episodes that were very much founded on Zen thinking and the Tao -- that method of meditation, becoming as the Buddha, perfectly content and mindful simply BEING.

Maybe I've made up my own "style", I don't know, but I don't see how you can be Buddhist without the Tao and Zen concepts.
edit on 14-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I think you very confused bro.

Most Buddhists don't follow Zen/Chan.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Could be! I am quite confused by all the spiritual stuff, no question about it. I did consider myself to be somewhat aware of what Buddhism and Tao/Zen speak to, but, again, maybe I'm completely wrong.

Thanks for contributing, though.
No offense intended at all.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
You should follow what scholars call the "Indo-Tibetan" tradition, and drop Zen in the trash can.

www.amazon.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


You should follow what scholars call the "Indo-Tibetan" tradition, and drop Zen in the trash can.

You think so? Hmmm. I don't generally go along with "shoulds"; and calling Zen "trash" isn't very enlightened.

I'm happy to look into the practice you recommend, but it's not your place to tell me "should." Or to call Zen "trash." Hanh would never say such a thing, from what I understand of him.

But thanks for your time and suggestion.

Namaste



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


I agree, they are independant of each other.

I just get tired of the non-spiritual liberal progressives spouting such as interconnectedness without a clue of what they speak.

We are connected. However, as you point out, we are also individuals and as individuals we have the right to succeed or fail without government intervention.

This is probably rather off-topic...sorry guys and gals! But it does speak to the gist of interconnectedness and individualism. No one can force our connectedness and no one can force our individualism.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


I agree, they are independant of each other.

This is what Open2Truth said: "In my humble opinion and experience - interconnectedness and individuality are not mutually exclusive.

'Not mutually exclusive.' That means.....both can co-exist.

I just get tired of the non-spiritual liberal progressives spouting such as interconnectedness without a clue of what they speak.

Sorry, what? Without a clue? ...... can you expound on this? "Non-spiritual liberal progressives"......rather vague, doesn't apply to me.....whom are you labeling, please?


We are connected. However, as you point out, we are also individuals and as individuals we have the right to succeed or fail without government intervention.

What does government intervention have to do with this thread's OP? Please? Perhaps you stumbled in here from the Social Issues and US Political Madness forums...??


This is probably rather off-topic...sorry guys and gals! But it does speak to the gist of interconnectedness and individualism.

Ahhhh...... No biggie. Yeah, it was.....


No one can force our connectedness and no one can force our individualism.

Wholeheartedly agree. BOTH are critical components; we are connected, but individuals, in separate "machines", who can only TRY to glean the connection via words and gestures......

and each of us sees the world in an entirely unique way. Even a set of twins will have divergent perspectives.....

Which is one of the reasons that life's journey is so fascinating. We all want that "connectedness" in a way, but we all want to be validated as individuals, too.

Thanks for the post, off-topic or not.


edit on 16-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2012 by wildtimes because: spelling. sorry, tired.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


I agree, they are independant of each other.

This is what Open2Truth said: "In my humble opinion and experience - interconnectedness and individuality are not mutually exclusive.

'Not mutually exclusive.' That means.....both can co-exist.
and individualism.


Thank you - yes indeed I meant that in my experience and opinion they co-exist.


BOTH are critical components; we are connected, but individuals, in separate "machines", who can only TRY to glean the connection via words and gestures......


I would add that it can be experienced. Once experienced, words and gestures might be used to try to communicate some sense of it to others. IMHO words, at best, can only be general pointers - the experiential knowing for oneself is truly ineffable.

edit on 8/16/2012 by Open2Truth because: add reply tag



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Thank you for not roasting me in your replies.


I agree we are in a physical machine. Any connectedness we may experience is necessarily very personal.

Liberal progressives in my opinion are those who promote socialistic ideals and work to implement those ideals in their sphere of influence. They promote "social justice" which does not espouse equal opportunity but instead want to effect equal outcome. They use the natural empathy of sensitive and spiritual people to help promote their goals by appealing to their understanding of inteconnectedness.

My opinion is that this is abuse.

Other than that, so sorry to interupt your discussion. I do tend to stumble around.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 1PLA1
 


Liberal progressives in my opinion are those who promote socialistic ideals and work to implement those ideals in their sphere of influence.

True. A noble cause.

They promote "social justice" which does not espouse equal opportunity but instead want to effect equal outcome.

Incorrect. Not sure where you got that differentiation. Equal opportunity is "social justice"; equal outcome is NOT what they seek. They (we) seek to bridge the chasm between the privileged and the disenfranchised, and to ensure that there is no one falling through the cracks -- whether in terms of food, shelter, clothing...or education and dignity. Most everyone can do something that contributes to the welfare of the community, which in turn can and should see to the welfare of each individual.

You seem to be equating "greed" or "jealousy" or "laziness" with "social justice". The simple truth is that after a certain point, a person or household doesn't need "more". It's the hoarding of wealth, and the "glass-ceiling" that the born-to-privilege and uber-successful few impose from their lofty positions. Examples are rampant.

Rather than sharing their profits with their employees (without whom they would have no business), they hoard it and push their employees to "work smarter", "faster", "harder", "longer"...and when they can, they take AWAY benefits, even jobs, with NO REGARD for what it does to the lives of those workers.

In my view, the "pirates" and "maritime smugglers" of times past had it right. The captain and ship-owner (not usually the same person) got 2 or 3 shares of the booty or the profit; each of the crew got 1 share, or 1.5 shares, or .5 share, depending on their qualifications. Everyone worked, everyone voted, and EVERYONE had enough to eat, and a job to do.

If the captain had kept all the booty for himself or the owner, and only handed out the meagerest rations and a few pretty beads after making a great haul, the crew could (and did) vote him out and appoint a new captain,
or declared MUTINY.

Those who oppose the "Liberal progressive" real agenda are mistaken when they paint it as "communism", where everyone wears the same uniform, lives in identical residences, has the same car, and gets the same ration of food. That is NOT social justice.

The WORKERS own the company, so they should be rewarded with a proportionate share of the profits, NOT be worried that their job will go to some 3rd world country;

or they'll be replaced by a young, inexperienced newly-hatched adult who is willing to work 80 hours per week,

or have to take a pay cut. No. If the company is in the red, the OWNERS and CAPTAINS should take the loss, not the paycheck-to-paycheck front line staff.


They use the natural empathy of sensitive and spiritual people to help promote their goals by appealing to their understanding of inteconnectedness.

Which is a wonderful thing!


My opinion is that this is abuse.

Of whom? Of what? Abuse??? If you consider putting a reasonable cap on wealth, and expecting excessive profits to be shared with the workers "abusive", then we are completely at odds, I'm sorry to say.

Just because Joe Schmoe bought five shares of Company Q (or some trader or broker did it for him), he gets five-shares worth of the profit? Rather than the struggling single parent who is doing the physical labor under terrible conditions and being pushed all the time to "do more, more, more, more....or else!!....." getting a bonus or a raise?

This is my main issue with the "stock market"...it is "fake", "digital" wealth, scraped off of the backs of the working people who can only barely keep up, let alone "get ahead," or ever hope to get out of the holes into which they've been born and/or pushed or fallen.




edit on 17-8-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
It reminds me of this parable which was found in The Tao of Pooh. It is great that spirit science made a cartoon version of it. It really explains this "inter-being" (unity/empathy/feeling the being of all others and all things)




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Awesome! Thanks for posting this.




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join