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.
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!)
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.
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]
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.
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]
You should follow what scholars call the "Indo-Tibetan" tradition, and drop Zen in the trash can.
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.
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.
BOTH are critical components; we are connected, but individuals, in separate "machines", who can only TRY to glean the connection via words and gestures......
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.