faust,
I certainly didn’t want out of the thread, due in any part, to your person. That would be an unfair assessment.
Being fully aware, in the justfiable manner of standard accepted symbology, of your dislike/mistrust of anything “religious”, I must still stand on what I stated earlier. That being, within a context of enumerated ideologies following perceived faith based doctrines, your personal engagement is still one of respect, even in disagreement.
Bravissimo. Rare, and rarer still yet.
My only clarifications will be as thus.
Eastern “religions”, as they are deemed from the Western perspective, are only religious at particular levels. Let me be clear and concise here, I am speaking of Tao"ism", Buddh"ism", Zen, Hindu"ism", Tantr"ism" and even the archaic forms of Kabbal"ism" and Sufi"ism".
The problem with any of these forms of philology, is none were ever intended as religions: Allow me to repeat this - none were ever intended as religions. All were intended as philosophical life processes, albeit, metaphysically. Understanding eastern thought, even the “metaphysical” part, can be skepticized. All are most inscrutably driven by understanding the naturalistic foundation of the human animal - as just that - an animal within the natural realm.
Virtually impossible for the Western mind to even conceptualize this premise, especially from cultures whose languages are invariably obfuscating, at the very least.
After spending three years with Saihung, and having met, most auspiciously, the Abbit of Huashan mountain, home of the Longmen Immortality Sect - Tao is anything but religious to me. Belief in dieties, is not necessary, but to those who lack character. Belief in dogma and mantra and sutra, is idiocy, inclined by the apathetic and sightless - words from the Abbit himself. As with any good teacher, his promise was always that the lesson was not given as a kept possession, but as watching a leaf blowing on the breeze, from autumn winds. Remember the lesson, forget the teacher.
You are still skeptical, and well you should be. Without belaboring a point of less than interest for most, I’ll again affront you with honesty. Tentative has my admiration because he is one of a sparse few “westerners” who has gleaned the understanding that Tao is not held by man made constructs - least of all religious ones. He is actually beyond rare to my understanding - enigma is a far better descriptor.
Religions follow man’s laws based upon man’s symbols. The ineffable, which only manifests as a process of infinitely vigorous, energetic universal continuum … can answer to no one, and the “laws” imparted by our eyes, are always a millenia behind, and a portion of the scope, not fit for mention.
By now the bile taste is complete in your mouth, because this all sounds like indoctrinated banter. Good. We at least have a modicum of understanding between us then. I’ll further your distaste. If in the course of “naturalistic living” one is found to be austere, complex, non-understandable, primal and unappealing; and these characteristics are within the nature of the individual naturally, and not hidden, or attempted to be modified so as to manifest, then that is one on the Watercourse.
This is always the misunderstanding of Tao, the “shit happens” religion, because it can’t be cloven to the individual, the individual must make as the uncarved block. Saihung taught me this well, and his life of many conflicts and bloodshed, honesty and forgiveness, herbivore and carnivore, love and celibacy …
It goes on forever, ad infinitum, and always from the outside are we confused.